It likes like we will again have an SEC team play in the BCS championship game. Auburn vs. Florida State. Yawn. The SEC manages to continue to play in the championship game because the conference has a reputation of winning it. The strict formula of rankings and ratings almost guarantees it.
over
Luckily, next year there will be a college football playoff, albeit only of 4 teams. The teams will be chosen by a committee rather than a formula. Hopefully this will give us a better set of teams.
How would we pick teams if we did it this year?
Well, Florida State would definitely be in. They are the only undefeated team. Undefeated teams should always make it to the playoff. Otherwise there will still be other claimants to the championship. Even if a team such as Northern Illinois makes it through undefeated, they should be in the playoff.
After Florida State, we need to use some tools to find the best teams. The conference championships can be helpful for picking participants. Pac12, Big10, SEC, ACC, Mountain West, MAC and C-USA all have a championship game. While we can't include the winner of each game, we can reasonably exclude the losers. (We could consider it as a play-in round.)
The SEC and Pac12 have been the strongest conferences this year, so their champions should get the first look. Do they pass the smell test? Auburn's lone loss has by a couple touchdowns, but it came back in September. They have the best record in the conference, and have beat the next-best teams (Alabama and Missouri) in their last two games. Looks good.
Stanford has two losses. However, they have played one of toughest schedules in the country (#4 by Sagarin - the only teams with tougher schedules are teams that Stanford defeated.) They have more victories over Sagarin top-10 (3) and Sagarin top-30 (6) teams than any other team. The two losses were both close (and could have been wins if a single play would have gone a different way.) They have recovered from their last loss with 3 victories, including the last two against top-25 teams, with the most recent a strong road win over Arizona State. Also looks good.
Now who do we get for the last spot? Oregon and Alabama were both early season favorites with records equal to Auburn and Stanford. Alabama's loss came on a time-expired kickoff return. However, that was the last game they played. (Do we call it a play in game?) Oregon's loss to Stanford was more of a drubbing. Since then, they lost one more game, and had to struggle to beat rival Oregon State.
Michigan State is the Big-10 champion. Their lone loss was a 4 point defeat at Notre Dame. However, the recent victory over Ohio State is the lone signature win. Other than that, they have just a trio of wins over 8-4 teams that are worth talking about. Yet, they have beat all teams by at least 10 points. Maybe.
Baylor is the 1-loss Big-12 champion. However, their loss 32-point loss to Oklahoma State was just a few weeks ago. They also won a close game at TCU last week. Their signature win was over 2-loss Oklahoma. Other than that, there is just a win over an 8-4 Texas. Sorry Bears.
What about the AAC? Louisville and UCF both have a single loss from early in the season. Alas, they lack signature victories. UCF's best win was against Louisville. And then 8-4 Houston is it. For Louisville, its 9-3 Cincinnati and 8-4 Houston. Meh. Neither team has been dominating their opponents.
Northern Illinois has one loss, but that was in the MAC championship game. Fresno State lost one game, but that was last week. Neither team has played a very strong schedule. C-USA champion Rice has 3 losses. The top Independents are 8-4 BYU and Notre Dame. Sun Belt Champion Louisiana-Lafayette has 4 losses.
Without a better option, the fourth spot comes down to a battle between Alabama and Michigan State. They both suffered a narrow road loss to a good team. Alabama would be a strong pick and the likely higher-ranked team. However, their last game was a loss and their opponent is represented in the playoff. Why have a rematch when their are better options? Thus, the spot would go to Michigan State.
Thus the playoff would be:
#1 Florida State vs #4 Michigan State
#2 Auburn vs #3 Stanford
As it turns out, this year, all four teams will likely be playing in the Rose bowl, with Michigan State vs Stanford in the Rose Bowl game, and Florida State likely playing against Auburn in the championship game the next week. Perhaps we just need one more after that to declare a champion.
Showing posts with label BCS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BCS. Show all posts
Sunday, December 08, 2013
Monday, September 09, 2013
Stanford football
Stanford took care of business, winning the first game at San Jose State in decisive fashion. However, we'll have to see how good San Jose is with the new coach. If they are as good as last season, this might have been a great Stanford victory. If they are back in "old" SJSU form, then maybe not so good.What scares me more is some of the predictions. A few prognosticators have Stanford pegged as national champion. So much for the underdog roll. Stanford has the type of team that could beat anybody. The problem is, it is also the team that could lose to just about anybody. The Cardinal probably have the best chance of unseated an SEC team to win the final BCS championship. However, they have to get there first.
So far this season, we have already seen that odd things can happen. Each week, a top 25 team from the Pac-12 has been clobbered by an underdog. We saw a bunch of FCS teams beat up their opponents. Virginia beats BYU in the first game, seemingly setting the tone for the season. However, BYU turns around and clobbers Texas, while Virginia gets annihilated by Oregon. USC gets beaten by Washington State in a defensive struggle. Florida and Georgia both lose to ACC teams. I think we'll need a few more weeks to even begin to sort things out. Lets just hope the cardinal can make it.
As for pro football, the (Jim) Harbaugh connections did well this weekend. Former Stanford QB Andrew Luck won with the Indianapolis Colts. Former 49ers QB Alex Smith one with Kansas City. And of course, the 49ers won. It looks like he is quite the groomer of quarterbacks.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Worst BCS team ever?
ESPN had a cow about Northern Illinois being a disgrace to the BCS. How dare they play in a big came when other "more deserving" schools are shut out. Northern Illinois did not exactly come out of nowhere. Less than 10 years ago (in 2003), they had been ranked #10 in the BCS, and had a victory over Alabama (in Alabama) under the belt, as well as a victory over Iowa State and a top 20 Maryland team. Alas, they lost a couple conference games and "only" finished 10-2. Their bowl reward? They got to stay home.
Now we have people complaining that they go to the BCS after winning their conference when teams like Oklahoma and Texas A&M are "stuck" in the Cotton Bowl. At least they get somewhere after going 10-2 and not winning their conference. That's much more than you can say about the 2003 Northern Illinois team.
Perhaps Northern Illinois is used to deflect the true "worst team" to make it to a BCS game, Wisconsin. They have five losses, and only managed to get in because two teams in their 6 team division were not eligible for the post-season. They blew out Nebraska in the title game, so they do appear to be on a roll. But, by their record, they are the worst the BCS has seen.
Wisconsin and Northern Illinois have also both recently had their coach leave for another job.
The other tragedy of the bowl season is "bad teams" making the bowls over good teams. 6-7 Georgia Tech will be playing USC. Middle Tennessee finished 8-4. They beat Georgia Tech (in Atlanta) by 21 points. They will not be going to a bowl.
9-3 Louisiana Tech will not be going to a bowl. They lost by 2 to Texas A&M. Alabama lost by 4, and get to play in the national championship. 6-6 Mississippi lost by 3 to A&M and gets a bowl game.
The biggest knock on the two teams is that they played in the WAC and Sun Belt. Had they been in a "BCS" conference, they would surely be bowling. Even Conference USA or Mountain West would have likely sent them to a bowl. Looking at Sagarin rankings, #88 East Carolina, #107 Air Force and #103 Rice finished lower than #84 Middle Tennessee and are both going to bowls.
Those ratings also can help us objectively identify who may truly be the worst BCS team ever.
Wisconsin, in spite of its record comes in at #21. Northern Illinois looks pretty pitiful down there at #34. (They are even behind WAC schools Utah State and San Jose State.) At 34, they must be one of the worst teams ever, right?
Nope. Not even for this season. Way down at #52 (5 spots below non-bowling Louisiana Tech) sits Louisville. Yep. The candidate for true "worst team" ever is the Big East representative in the BCS Sugar bowl against Florida.
Lets see how the games turn out.
Now we have people complaining that they go to the BCS after winning their conference when teams like Oklahoma and Texas A&M are "stuck" in the Cotton Bowl. At least they get somewhere after going 10-2 and not winning their conference. That's much more than you can say about the 2003 Northern Illinois team.
Perhaps Northern Illinois is used to deflect the true "worst team" to make it to a BCS game, Wisconsin. They have five losses, and only managed to get in because two teams in their 6 team division were not eligible for the post-season. They blew out Nebraska in the title game, so they do appear to be on a roll. But, by their record, they are the worst the BCS has seen.
Wisconsin and Northern Illinois have also both recently had their coach leave for another job.
The other tragedy of the bowl season is "bad teams" making the bowls over good teams. 6-7 Georgia Tech will be playing USC. Middle Tennessee finished 8-4. They beat Georgia Tech (in Atlanta) by 21 points. They will not be going to a bowl.
9-3 Louisiana Tech will not be going to a bowl. They lost by 2 to Texas A&M. Alabama lost by 4, and get to play in the national championship. 6-6 Mississippi lost by 3 to A&M and gets a bowl game.
The biggest knock on the two teams is that they played in the WAC and Sun Belt. Had they been in a "BCS" conference, they would surely be bowling. Even Conference USA or Mountain West would have likely sent them to a bowl. Looking at Sagarin rankings, #88 East Carolina, #107 Air Force and #103 Rice finished lower than #84 Middle Tennessee and are both going to bowls.
Those ratings also can help us objectively identify who may truly be the worst BCS team ever.
Wisconsin, in spite of its record comes in at #21. Northern Illinois looks pretty pitiful down there at #34. (They are even behind WAC schools Utah State and San Jose State.) At 34, they must be one of the worst teams ever, right?
Nope. Not even for this season. Way down at #52 (5 spots below non-bowling Louisiana Tech) sits Louisville. Yep. The candidate for true "worst team" ever is the Big East representative in the BCS Sugar bowl against Florida.
Lets see how the games turn out.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Football 2010
And in the name of cleanup, here is the old football post from the 2010 season. Some of the same teams are around here, but the conferences have changed a lot.
Pac-10
Oregon - They have been decimating opponents. However, they have only faced one good team (Stanford). The remaining games are all against teams with legitimate bowl expectations. If they win out, they should see a nice boost in computer rankings and human rankings. However, winning out could be a challenge. The Ducks should be favored in the remainder of their games. They tend to play well at home; however, road visits to Oregon State and USC could be especially challenging.
Big-12
Oklahoma - The Sooners blew out Florida State and Iowa State. All the other games have been close, whether against good teams like Air Force, or not-so-good teams like Utah State. They have only left Normon twice this season (against so-so Cincinnati and the Red-River rivalry against Texas. Unfortunately, their two biggest games remaining are on the road against Missouri and Oklahoma State. It is hard to know what to make of them. However, if they win out, they should be legitimate.
Missouri - They beat San Diego State thanks to a botched call. Other than that, their showcase victory is an opening victory over Illinois. The next two weeks they will be underdogs against Oklahoma and Nebraska. Win those and they should show up on the BCS radar. However, they would still have to beat Kansas State and the Big 12 south champion to have a shot - and hope some other teams lose.
Oklahoma State - Like Missouri, the Cowboys have beat up on a lot of mediocre teams. (The marquee non-conference game was a nailbiter against Troy.) The next two weeks get Nebraska and Kansas State. They also have games against a now rejuvenated Texas and the closer against Oklahoma. Like Missouri, they face long odds of making it unscathed through the season - and then they have to hope for some falls above them.
Big East:
Um Yeah. Maybe if every other FBS team has 2 or 3 losses, the one win West Virginia may make it in...
ACC:
Florida State is the only team with an outside sliver of a chance. The chance looks a little better than West Virginia's, but not much.
WAC:
Boise State should be looking good. Their biggest danger would be letting their guard down in a game. The trip to Nevada in late November should be the biggest challenge (and hopefully provide a computer boost.) Fresno and Hawaii should not be disregarded, and the "final" trip to Idaho could unleash some venom. However, the biggest challenge may be overcoming a "WAC bias"
Mountain West:
Pac-10
Oregon - They have been decimating opponents. However, they have only faced one good team (Stanford). The remaining games are all against teams with legitimate bowl expectations. If they win out, they should see a nice boost in computer rankings and human rankings. However, winning out could be a challenge. The Ducks should be favored in the remainder of their games. They tend to play well at home; however, road visits to Oregon State and USC could be especially challenging.
Big-12
Oklahoma - The Sooners blew out Florida State and Iowa State. All the other games have been close, whether against good teams like Air Force, or not-so-good teams like Utah State. They have only left Normon twice this season (against so-so Cincinnati and the Red-River rivalry against Texas. Unfortunately, their two biggest games remaining are on the road against Missouri and Oklahoma State. It is hard to know what to make of them. However, if they win out, they should be legitimate.
Missouri - They beat San Diego State thanks to a botched call. Other than that, their showcase victory is an opening victory over Illinois. The next two weeks they will be underdogs against Oklahoma and Nebraska. Win those and they should show up on the BCS radar. However, they would still have to beat Kansas State and the Big 12 south champion to have a shot - and hope some other teams lose.
Oklahoma State - Like Missouri, the Cowboys have beat up on a lot of mediocre teams. (The marquee non-conference game was a nailbiter against Troy.) The next two weeks get Nebraska and Kansas State. They also have games against a now rejuvenated Texas and the closer against Oklahoma. Like Missouri, they face long odds of making it unscathed through the season - and then they have to hope for some falls above them.
Big East:
Um Yeah. Maybe if every other FBS team has 2 or 3 losses, the one win West Virginia may make it in...
ACC:
Florida State is the only team with an outside sliver of a chance. The chance looks a little better than West Virginia's, but not much.
WAC:
Boise State should be looking good. Their biggest danger would be letting their guard down in a game. The trip to Nevada in late November should be the biggest challenge (and hopefully provide a computer boost.) Fresno and Hawaii should not be disregarded, and the "final" trip to Idaho could unleash some venom. However, the biggest challenge may be overcoming a "WAC bias"
Mountain West:
Saturday, December 03, 2011
bcs number two
Blog Poll
Looking at the results so far this season, it is pretty clear that LSU is the best team. They beat the champions of two BCS conferences. They also went undefeated and won their own conference.
Number two is less certain. For every team with one or two losses, LSU beat them them or beat a team (that beat a team...) that beat them. Most of these wins were by a touchdown or more. (Sorry Pac-12). However, there are a few "narrow cases". Alabama was only beat by 3 points. Getting to Oklahoma State or Boise State requires a couple narrow wins.
So, Boise State, Alabama and Oklahoma State seem like the likely targets.
Who should be the #2 in the championship game?
Alabama had a narrow loss, but it was at home. And they lost directly to LSU. Even if Alabama won the championship game, there would be the argument that LSU is better. (Even with a loss, LSU would still have a better resume, and an equal record.)
Boise State lost by three points to TCU, but it was at home.
Oklahoma State, has the worst loss. However, it was by less than a touchdown, and to get the LSU chain, you also need another narrow loss by less than a touchdown. The Oklahoma State loss can also be chalked up to mitigating circumstances. It was played on the road immediately after two basketball coaches died in a plane crash. If it wasn't "football", this game could have easily been postponed. A victory by either team would be a more clear cut champion.
So, of course, this being the BCS, we will see Alabama in the championship game. Oh well.
LSU beat Alabama (3pt)
LSU beat Arkansas which beat Texas AandM (4pt) which beat Iowa State which beat Oklahoma State (6pt) (which beat all Big 12)
LSU beat Oregon which beat Stanford (which beat USC)
LSU beat Arkansas which beat Texas AandM (4pt) which beat Baylor which beat TCU (2pt) which beat Boise State (3pt)
or LSU - Arkansas - Texas AndM which beat SMU which beat TCU
LSU beat West Virginia which beat Marshall which beat Southern Miss (6pt) which beat Houston
LSU beat Arkansas which beat South Carolina which beat Clemson which beat Virginia Tech
LSU beat West Virginia which beat South Florida which beat Notre Dame which beat Michigan State (which beat Wisconsin and Michigan)
LSU beat Georgia (which beat Georgia Tech which beat Clemson)
Looking at the results so far this season, it is pretty clear that LSU is the best team. They beat the champions of two BCS conferences. They also went undefeated and won their own conference.
Number two is less certain. For every team with one or two losses, LSU beat them them or beat a team (that beat a team...) that beat them. Most of these wins were by a touchdown or more. (Sorry Pac-12). However, there are a few "narrow cases". Alabama was only beat by 3 points. Getting to Oklahoma State or Boise State requires a couple narrow wins.
So, Boise State, Alabama and Oklahoma State seem like the likely targets.
Who should be the #2 in the championship game?
Alabama had a narrow loss, but it was at home. And they lost directly to LSU. Even if Alabama won the championship game, there would be the argument that LSU is better. (Even with a loss, LSU would still have a better resume, and an equal record.)
Boise State lost by three points to TCU, but it was at home.
Oklahoma State, has the worst loss. However, it was by less than a touchdown, and to get the LSU chain, you also need another narrow loss by less than a touchdown. The Oklahoma State loss can also be chalked up to mitigating circumstances. It was played on the road immediately after two basketball coaches died in a plane crash. If it wasn't "football", this game could have easily been postponed. A victory by either team would be a more clear cut champion.
So, of course, this being the BCS, we will see Alabama in the championship game. Oh well.
LSU beat Alabama (3pt)
LSU beat Arkansas which beat Texas AandM (4pt) which beat Iowa State which beat Oklahoma State (6pt) (which beat all Big 12)
LSU beat Oregon which beat Stanford (which beat USC)
LSU beat Arkansas which beat Texas AandM (4pt) which beat Baylor which beat TCU (2pt) which beat Boise State (3pt)
or LSU - Arkansas - Texas AndM which beat SMU which beat TCU
LSU beat West Virginia which beat Marshall which beat Southern Miss (6pt) which beat Houston
LSU beat Arkansas which beat South Carolina which beat Clemson which beat Virginia Tech
LSU beat West Virginia which beat South Florida which beat Notre Dame which beat Michigan State (which beat Wisconsin and Michigan)
LSU beat Georgia (which beat Georgia Tech which beat Clemson)
Monday, December 06, 2010
BCS chaos scenario
What would have happened if a few close games went the other way? Or a few upsets didn't happen? Here is the "BCS chaos scenario". I've "reversed" some games that
With the results, we end up with BCS results something like this. All the potential at-large teams are from non-BCS conferences. Boise State and TCU end up in the championship game. The Orange bowl figures 6-6 Pitt will travel well, so they pick them against Virginia Tech. The Sugar goes the service academy route. The Fiesta figures that Utah would travel well again. The whole BCS blows up in smoke, as they are stuck with a bunch of games they really didn't want. They finally cave and decide a playoff wouldn't be so bad after all - especially if they can use their stadiums for venues. Or maybe the presidents get mad and say enough is enough and return the bowls to their old New Years Day special reward.
Ok, this probably stretched credulity a little too far. (Teams like 'bama and Oregon would probably be ranked above some of these non-AQs.) However, getting TCU vs. Boise in the national Championship required nothing more than flipping an NCAA ruling and a few scores.
Auburn misses a field goal in the OT win vs. Clemson (and perhaps at Mississippi State also)
Boise doesn't miss a field goal in OT loss at Nevada
Cal scored a field goal vs. Oregon
Virginia Tech wasn't caught by surprise by James Madison
And for good measure, ASU didn't miss the extra point vs. Wisconsin
This would leave:
12-0 Boise State
12-0 TCU
12-1 Virginia Tech
11-1 Oregon
11-1 Auburn or (10-2)
11-1 Stanford
11-1 Ohio State
11-1 Michigan State
Its probably best to give Auburn two losses to make sure a 1 loss SEC team doesn't sneak in to the championship. It would be hard to justify sending any of the remaining one-lossers over undefeated Boise and TCU. (Ohio State has the biggest "name brand". But they also have the loss to one loss Michigan State - and a schedule strength comparable to Boise and TCU. Stanford had looked the best, but they have the loss to Oregon. Virginia Tech would be on the tear, with 12 wins since the season opening loss to Boise. However, who wants a rematch?
Just a few field goals away.
South Carolina L Alabama, L Clemson; 7-5; Newton Dq'd, win SEC champ: 8-5 Oregon: L Cal, Stanford, Oregon State 9-3 Hawaii: Beat USC, Colorado : 12-1 Fresno: Beat Mississipi 9-3 Virginia Tech: Beat James Madison: 12-1 Wisconsin: L ASU, Wisconisn 9-3 Oregon State: W Washington, Washington State, UCLA, Oregon 9-3 Utah: W Notre Dame: 11-1 Ohio State: L Iowa, L Illinois 9-3 Arkansas: L Texas A&M, W Alabama, L Mississuppi 9-3 LSU: L Tennessee, Mississippi 8-4 Oklahoma: L Utah State, Air Force 8-4 Missouri: L San Diego State, W Texas Tech, L (Big 12 Champ. A&M) 10-3 San Diego State: W BYU, Missouri 10-2 Alabama: W South Carolina 10-2, L Arkansas Air Force: W Oklaoma 9-3 Teas A&M: W Arkansas, L FIU 9-3, W Big 12 champ (Missouri) UCF: Win NC State, Kansas State 12-1 Oklahoma State L Troy 9-3 Iowa: W Ohio State, Wisconsin, L Indiana 8-4 North illinois: W illinois, Miami (OH) 12-1 Pitt: L FIU, W UConn, L USF (6-6) [5-2] West Virginia: L Louisville (8-4) [4-3] UConn: L Pitt 7-5 [4-3]Stanford: W Oregon 12-0
With the results, we end up with BCS results something like this. All the potential at-large teams are from non-BCS conferences. Boise State and TCU end up in the championship game. The Orange bowl figures 6-6 Pitt will travel well, so they pick them against Virginia Tech. The Sugar goes the service academy route. The Fiesta figures that Utah would travel well again. The whole BCS blows up in smoke, as they are stuck with a bunch of games they really didn't want. They finally cave and decide a playoff wouldn't be so bad after all - especially if they can use their stadiums for venues. Or maybe the presidents get mad and say enough is enough and return the bowls to their old New Years Day special reward.
1. TCU: 12-0 [BCS Champ] 2. Boise State 12-0 [BCS Championship] 3. Stanford: 11-1 [Rose] 4. Michigan State: 11-1 [Rose] 5. Virginia Tech: 12-1 [Orange] 6. Hawaii: 12-1 7. Utah: 11-1 [Fiesta] 8. UCF 12-1 9. San Diego State: 10-2 10. Northern Illinois 12-1 11. Nevada: 11-2 12. Texas A&M 10-3 [Fiesta] 13. Air Force 9-3 [Sugar] 14. Fresno State 9-3 Oregon: 9-3 Wisconsin: 9-3 Alabama: 9-3 Missouri 9-3 Nebraska 10-3 Florida State 10-3 Arkansas 9-3 West Virginia 9-3 Ohio State 9-3 Oklahoma State 9-3 Oregon State 8-4 Oklahoma 8-4 Mississippi State 8-4 LSU 8-4 Pitt 6-6 [Orange] South Carolina 8-5 [Sugar] Auburn 12-1 [ineligible]
Ok, this probably stretched credulity a little too far. (Teams like 'bama and Oregon would probably be ranked above some of these non-AQs.) However, getting TCU vs. Boise in the national Championship required nothing more than flipping an NCAA ruling and a few scores.
Auburn misses a field goal in the OT win vs. Clemson (and perhaps at Mississippi State also)
Boise doesn't miss a field goal in OT loss at Nevada
Cal scored a field goal vs. Oregon
Virginia Tech wasn't caught by surprise by James Madison
And for good measure, ASU didn't miss the extra point vs. Wisconsin
This would leave:
12-0 Boise State
12-0 TCU
12-1 Virginia Tech
11-1 Oregon
11-1 Auburn or (10-2)
11-1 Stanford
11-1 Ohio State
11-1 Michigan State
Its probably best to give Auburn two losses to make sure a 1 loss SEC team doesn't sneak in to the championship. It would be hard to justify sending any of the remaining one-lossers over undefeated Boise and TCU. (Ohio State has the biggest "name brand". But they also have the loss to one loss Michigan State - and a schedule strength comparable to Boise and TCU. Stanford had looked the best, but they have the loss to Oregon. Virginia Tech would be on the tear, with 12 wins since the season opening loss to Boise. However, who wants a rematch?
Just a few field goals away.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Pac-10 bowls
The Pac-10 only has 4 bowl-eligible teams. Only the Sun Belt has fewer bowl-eligible teams.
In spite of this the Pac-10 is one of the strongest conferences this season.
With 70 available bowl spots, you would imagine the top 70 teams would be playing. So, lets take a look at the top-70 teams that did not make the cut:
Hmm... The top 4 are all from the Pac-10. This list takes in every Pac-10 team save Washington State (and they are not that far down at #82). So why are the Pac-10 teams ranked so highly, but not in bowls?
USC was declared ineligible for something somebody may have done a long time ago. (They should have hired Auburn's Cam Newton case lawyers.)
ASU had 6 wins, but played two 1AA schools due to San Jose State dropping out at the last minute. It didn't matter that one of these schools was ranked higher than SJSU (and the other was not far behind). A rule is a rule. SJSU also dropped Stanford for the season. Luckily, Stanford did not have a 1AA scheduled and was able to fill the spot with Scramento State. (And it wouldn't have mattered anyway.) Who did SJSU play instead? Wisconsin and Alabama. If you have the money, you can buy your way to a "quality" victory.
Oregon State and California both had some tough non-conference road games (TCU and Boise for the Beavers and Nevada for California) Replace one of these top 15 teams with a more manageable team (say a middle of the pack SEC team?) and both would be bowling.
Another source of blame could be the 9-game conference schedule. Had Oregon State and Cal only had an 8 game schedule, they could have schedule an "easy win" non-conference game and voila, they would both be bowl eligible.
UCLA is a more difficult case. They managed just 4 victories for the season. However, it would not be a stretch to see them bowl eligible in another conference. They had a particularly brutal non-conference tour of Big-12 country with wins against Houston and Texas and a loss to Kansas State. Replace the K-State game with a 1AA school and drop a conference game and they, too, could be bowling. Alas, they are not in the SEC. At least they can take solace in knocking three teams (Houston, Texas and Oregon State) from bowl contention.
So there you have it, the Pac-10 just needs to emulate the SEC's scheduling practices (and hire their lawyers) and they could have 9 teams bowling.
In spite of this the Pac-10 is one of the strongest conferences this season.
With 70 available bowl spots, you would imagine the top 70 teams would be playing. So, lets take a look at the top-70 teams that did not make the cut:
Top ranked nonbowl teams 22. USC (8-5) 24. ASU (6-6) 31. Oregon State (5-7) 34. California (5-7) 53. Texas (5-7) 58. Colorado (5-7) 59. UCLA (4-8) 62. Iowa State (5-7)
Hmm... The top 4 are all from the Pac-10. This list takes in every Pac-10 team save Washington State (and they are not that far down at #82). So why are the Pac-10 teams ranked so highly, but not in bowls?
USC was declared ineligible for something somebody may have done a long time ago. (They should have hired Auburn's Cam Newton case lawyers.)
ASU had 6 wins, but played two 1AA schools due to San Jose State dropping out at the last minute. It didn't matter that one of these schools was ranked higher than SJSU (and the other was not far behind). A rule is a rule. SJSU also dropped Stanford for the season. Luckily, Stanford did not have a 1AA scheduled and was able to fill the spot with Scramento State. (And it wouldn't have mattered anyway.) Who did SJSU play instead? Wisconsin and Alabama. If you have the money, you can buy your way to a "quality" victory.
Oregon State and California both had some tough non-conference road games (TCU and Boise for the Beavers and Nevada for California) Replace one of these top 15 teams with a more manageable team (say a middle of the pack SEC team?) and both would be bowling.
Another source of blame could be the 9-game conference schedule. Had Oregon State and Cal only had an 8 game schedule, they could have schedule an "easy win" non-conference game and voila, they would both be bowl eligible.
UCLA is a more difficult case. They managed just 4 victories for the season. However, it would not be a stretch to see them bowl eligible in another conference. They had a particularly brutal non-conference tour of Big-12 country with wins against Houston and Texas and a loss to Kansas State. Replace the K-State game with a 1AA school and drop a conference game and they, too, could be bowling. Alas, they are not in the SEC. At least they can take solace in knocking three teams (Houston, Texas and Oregon State) from bowl contention.
So there you have it, the Pac-10 just needs to emulate the SEC's scheduling practices (and hire their lawyers) and they could have 9 teams bowling.
Oregon State vs. Connecticut
Continuing the "using UConn to bash on the BCS" theme:
Oregon State finished 5-7. Their season is over. Revenue-wise, they should do ok. The Pac-10 has two teams in BCS bowls. However, they failed to fill the Sun Bowl spot. (The other two Pac-10 bowls would probably just cover the expenses of a team.)
Connecticut? They are 8-4, the Big East champs and are going to the BCS Fiesta bowl. A total of 6 BCS teams are going to various bowl games. With only an 8-way revenue split, Connecticut should be doing rather well.
Now, does UConn deserve a big game, while OSU stays home?
Not according to Sagarin rankings: UConn is #54, while Oregon State is #31.
Not according to similar opponents: OSU beat Louisville, while UConn was shut out.
So why is UConn bowling and not Oregon State?
You can blame the Pac-10.
Oregon and Stanford dominated the Pac-10. Even without them, you are still left with a strong conference with close parity.
Sagarin rankings of the conference teams:
Both the Big East and Pac-10 have full round robin schedules. However, the Pac-10 has two additional teams, and thus two extra non-conference games. With Stanford and Oregon dominating at the top, that means two additional losses for each team.
If each Big East team had to lose to Stanford and Oregon, only two teams would be bowl eligible. Similarly, if each Pac-10 team could replace their Stanford/Oregon loses with "easy" games, then every Pac-10 team save Washington State would be bowl eligible.
In addition to the conference schedule, the Pac-10 also tends to hurt itself with hard non-conference scheduling. Oregon State was the poster child for this. Their easy non-conference game happened to be Big East member Louisville. For their other opponent, they got two top-10 teams on the road. Talk about fun!
Here are the comparisons of Sagarin rankings of all Oregon State and UConn opponents: (bold+ denotes a win)
OSU played 7 teams ranked higher than anyone UConn played (and won 3).
UConn played 4 teams ranked lower than anyone OSU played (and lost 1).
Hand Oregon's top four opponents to UConn in exchange for their bottom four and the Huskies could easily be 4-8 instead of 8-4.
Oregon State is a little baffling. They lost to all the top-10 teams (4) they played. However, they beat everyone between 20-40. (4) Then they lost 3 of 4 to teams ranked below 40.
UConn had a similarly odd performance. The beat their highest ranked team (#30), then went won,loss,won,loss,won,loss,won,loss between 41 and 100 before beating the three remaining teams rankings above 100.
Were OSU in the Big East, they would have had a high probability of securing a BCS bowl bid. Alas, they were in the Pac 10 and had a to stay home.
Oregon State finished 5-7. Their season is over. Revenue-wise, they should do ok. The Pac-10 has two teams in BCS bowls. However, they failed to fill the Sun Bowl spot. (The other two Pac-10 bowls would probably just cover the expenses of a team.)
Connecticut? They are 8-4, the Big East champs and are going to the BCS Fiesta bowl. A total of 6 BCS teams are going to various bowl games. With only an 8-way revenue split, Connecticut should be doing rather well.
Now, does UConn deserve a big game, while OSU stays home?
Not according to Sagarin rankings: UConn is #54, while Oregon State is #31.
Not according to similar opponents: OSU beat Louisville, while UConn was shut out.
So why is UConn bowling and not Oregon State?
You can blame the Pac-10.
Oregon and Stanford dominated the Pac-10. Even without them, you are still left with a strong conference with close parity.
Sagarin rankings of the conference teams:
Big East: 30,41,54,65,68,70,78,100 Pac10: 1,3,22,23,24,31,34,42,59,82
Both the Big East and Pac-10 have full round robin schedules. However, the Pac-10 has two additional teams, and thus two extra non-conference games. With Stanford and Oregon dominating at the top, that means two additional losses for each team.
If each Big East team had to lose to Stanford and Oregon, only two teams would be bowl eligible. Similarly, if each Pac-10 team could replace their Stanford/Oregon loses with "easy" games, then every Pac-10 team save Washington State would be bowl eligible.
In addition to the conference schedule, the Pac-10 also tends to hurt itself with hard non-conference scheduling. Oregon State was the poster child for this. Their easy non-conference game happened to be Big East member Louisville. For their other opponent, they got two top-10 teams on the road. Talk about fun!
Here are the comparisons of Sagarin rankings of all Oregon State and UConn opponents: (bold+ denotes a win)
OSU: 1,3,4,8,22+,23+,24+,34+,42 ,59 , ,68+, ,82 UConn: 30+,41+,48 ,65+,68 ,70+,73,78+,100,122+,159+,183+
OSU played 7 teams ranked higher than anyone UConn played (and won 3).
UConn played 4 teams ranked lower than anyone OSU played (and lost 1).
Hand Oregon's top four opponents to UConn in exchange for their bottom four and the Huskies could easily be 4-8 instead of 8-4.
Oregon State is a little baffling. They lost to all the top-10 teams (4) they played. However, they beat everyone between 20-40. (4) Then they lost 3 of 4 to teams ranked below 40.
UConn had a similarly odd performance. The beat their highest ranked team (#30), then went won,loss,won,loss,won,loss,won,loss between 41 and 100 before beating the three remaining teams rankings above 100.
Were OSU in the Big East, they would have had a high probability of securing a BCS bowl bid. Alas, they were in the Pac 10 and had a to stay home.
Connecticut vs. Temple
Connecticut and Temple both finished the regular season 8-4.
Both are located in the northeast.
Both have played football in the Big East (Connecticut 'replaced' Temple's football spot.)
Temple defeated Connecticut by two touchdowns.
Connecticut is going to an elite $18 million payout BCS bowl game.
Temple? They're staying home.
So, suppose the Big East divides revenue equally, and Connecticut splurges and spends $2 to "travel" to Arizona for the game. They get an extra month of practice time, a load of extra money and perks for their players and coaches, and then they get the $2 million extra for their program on top of that. Temple? Nada. The rich get richer.
Both are located in the northeast.
Both have played football in the Big East (Connecticut 'replaced' Temple's football spot.)
Temple defeated Connecticut by two touchdowns.
Connecticut is going to an elite $18 million payout BCS bowl game.
Temple? They're staying home.
So, suppose the Big East divides revenue equally, and Connecticut splurges and spends $2 to "travel" to Arizona for the game. They get an extra month of practice time, a load of extra money and perks for their players and coaches, and then they get the $2 million extra for their program on top of that. Temple? Nada. The rich get richer.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Football as a sport...
Nevada beat Boise State at home. In the process they likely cost the school a hefty BCS paycheck and likely relegated themselves to a more lowly bowl.
Nice reward, eh?
A few years ago, LSU raised the poppycock about not losing a single game in regulation (they lost two in OT) to lobby their way in to the national championship game. This was the same year that Hawaii ended the season undefeated without a chance to play. LSU won the game, while Hawaii (after losing their coach) got stomped by Georgia. It seemed like vindication of the naysayers. However, what would have happened if it were the other way around?
The next season, Alabama lost the SEC championship game, and was then destroyed by undefeated Utah in a BCS game. This time the story was "letdown". Hmm... It seems the SEC always has a way to spin things their way.
Back to the WAC, Nevada likely ended the hopes of a BCS payday for the WAC. Boise and Nevada will likely rank far ahead of anyone from the Big East that might make a BCS game. They will likely be ahead of the ACC champion also. But their reward is a mediocre bowl. By winning, Nevada may have also won a trip to New Mexico instead of San Francisco. Whopee!
Yet they still played their heart out. And won. Now they can claim bragging rights with a victory over Boise and a tie in the conference standings. The cost? Only a few million for their program. C'est la vie.
Nice reward, eh?
A few years ago, LSU raised the poppycock about not losing a single game in regulation (they lost two in OT) to lobby their way in to the national championship game. This was the same year that Hawaii ended the season undefeated without a chance to play. LSU won the game, while Hawaii (after losing their coach) got stomped by Georgia. It seemed like vindication of the naysayers. However, what would have happened if it were the other way around?
The next season, Alabama lost the SEC championship game, and was then destroyed by undefeated Utah in a BCS game. This time the story was "letdown". Hmm... It seems the SEC always has a way to spin things their way.
Back to the WAC, Nevada likely ended the hopes of a BCS payday for the WAC. Boise and Nevada will likely rank far ahead of anyone from the Big East that might make a BCS game. They will likely be ahead of the ACC champion also. But their reward is a mediocre bowl. By winning, Nevada may have also won a trip to New Mexico instead of San Francisco. Whopee!
Yet they still played their heart out. And won. Now they can claim bragging rights with a victory over Boise and a tie in the conference standings. The cost? Only a few million for their program. C'est la vie.
Friday, November 26, 2010
BCS dream come true
Alabama was a few touchdowns ahead of Auburn. Then they must have realized, "hey, if we win we might not have an SEC team in the title game." So, like the true southern gent, they keeled over and let Auburn have the game.
Oregon looked like they were having trouble at Arizona. But, hey, the Ducks don't really start to play until the second half anyway. (Notwithstanding the Cal episode - they must have got lost on the way to the stadium there.)
Things looked close, but the crisis was averted. Sure, Oregon isn't in the Big- conference, but at least they are BCS, undefeated, and most important, have gobs of money and fans.
In the late game, the BCS got another dream come true as Nevada defeated Boise. Luckily for BCS-land, Nevada had to travel to Hawaii this year and has a loss to their record. Two one-less WAC teams can enjoy their top-20 rankings and visits to exciting bowl games like the Kraft Fight Hunger bowl. No need to worry the BCS there.
Unfortunately, not all was well in BCS land. The Big East continued its string of ineptitude, leaving Connecticut in the driver's seat for the title. They just have to beat Cincinnati (who is a far cry from last year's team) and USF (who seems to end the season a few weeks before other teams.) Neither game will be easy, but both are possible. That will leave an 8-4 team (i.e. one that does not have enough wins to be an at large team) in the BCS game. Worse yet, they are from a relatively small market that doesn't care much about football. They do have good basketball fans, so there is some hope that they make it out there.
In the best scenario, UConn loses and West Virginia wins, leaving an 'acceptable' 9-3 West Virginia to play in a BCS bowl. But this is the Big East, so it wouldn't be too surprising to see them lose to Rutgers. This could allow Pitt, with a 7-5 record to make it. If Rutgers wins and Cincinnati manages to run the table, the Bearcats could actually share the Big East championship - at 6-6. (However, with this scenario, West Virginia would probably win the tiebreakers.)
Luckily, no one really cares about the Big East in BCS land. They will probably just be the filler for some good traveling at-large Big-10 team to pound.
Oregon looked like they were having trouble at Arizona. But, hey, the Ducks don't really start to play until the second half anyway. (Notwithstanding the Cal episode - they must have got lost on the way to the stadium there.)
Things looked close, but the crisis was averted. Sure, Oregon isn't in the Big- conference, but at least they are BCS, undefeated, and most important, have gobs of money and fans.
In the late game, the BCS got another dream come true as Nevada defeated Boise. Luckily for BCS-land, Nevada had to travel to Hawaii this year and has a loss to their record. Two one-less WAC teams can enjoy their top-20 rankings and visits to exciting bowl games like the Kraft Fight Hunger bowl. No need to worry the BCS there.
Unfortunately, not all was well in BCS land. The Big East continued its string of ineptitude, leaving Connecticut in the driver's seat for the title. They just have to beat Cincinnati (who is a far cry from last year's team) and USF (who seems to end the season a few weeks before other teams.) Neither game will be easy, but both are possible. That will leave an 8-4 team (i.e. one that does not have enough wins to be an at large team) in the BCS game. Worse yet, they are from a relatively small market that doesn't care much about football. They do have good basketball fans, so there is some hope that they make it out there.
In the best scenario, UConn loses and West Virginia wins, leaving an 'acceptable' 9-3 West Virginia to play in a BCS bowl. But this is the Big East, so it wouldn't be too surprising to see them lose to Rutgers. This could allow Pitt, with a 7-5 record to make it. If Rutgers wins and Cincinnati manages to run the table, the Bearcats could actually share the Big East championship - at 6-6. (However, with this scenario, West Virginia would probably win the tiebreakers.)
Luckily, no one really cares about the Big East in BCS land. They will probably just be the filler for some good traveling at-large Big-10 team to pound.
Friday, November 19, 2010
The BCS conference beauty contest
In the Yahoo! Sports Blog Pollin' table, a list of the top 6 wins by each team is provided. The inclusion or exclusion of a team in the "quality list" is somewhat arbitrary. (3-6 Cincinnati, 4-6 Ole Miss and 5-5 BYU appear, but 7-4 Toledo doesn't make the cut. The criteria seems to be "BCS conference team or popular non-BCS team.) However aside from the criteria issue, it appears that the wins are built almost entirely of teams in the same conference.
TCU and Oklahoma are the only teams that get credited with 3 of their top 6 wins against non-conference opponents. (though Boise State's Toledo win would probably rank as 4th best if it were included.) Only 5 teams (Boise, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Arizona) include victories over top 25 out of conference teams.
So what does this tell us? Most top ranked teams get there by beating high-ranked conference opponents. These high ranked opponents are high-ranked because: 1) they have few losses in conference play and 2) they have victories over inferior teams out of conference.
How is the best way to carry this out? Well, the ACC, SEC and Big-12 have a pretty good model. 1) They have the "BCS" status that allows them to schedule money games against inferior opponents. Most teams will schedule three or four easy wins. 2) They have 12 teams in the conference, yet only play 8 conference games. This minimizes the internal conference carnage.
The Big-10 comes close to the model, with 8 conference games and an 11 team league.
The Big East plays a full round-robin schedule, but due to league size play only 7 conference games. In this case, the five non-conference games works against them. They lack the money, reputation (and quality) to play 5 sure-wins, and often end up with more competitive non-conference match-ups. The complete round-robin schedule also hurts.
Of the BCS conferences, the Pac-10 does the worst job of guaranteeing its BCS riches. The 9 round-robin conference schedule adds in additional conference losses. They also tend to schedule more competitive non-conference games. (Geography is a factor - the WAC and Mountain West are the nearest conferences, and happen to be the best of the non-BCS conferences.)
For the non-BCS conferences, scheduling is the big disadvantage. The lower teams in the conference often schedule body-bag games to bring in revenue, adding to conference loses. Due to poor conference perception, the top teams schedule more competitive games (and fewer "sure wins").
The ranking of each team, with the top nonconference wins (number proceeding is where it ranks in top 6 wins, number after is where the team ranks in top 25).
1) Auburn : 6. Clemson
2) Oregon : 0
3) TCU : 2. Baylor, 5. SMU, 6. Oregon State
4) Boise State: 1. Virginia Tech (16), 3. Oregon State
5) LSU : 4. West Virginia, 5. North Carolina
6) Stanford: 3. Notre Dame
7) Nebraska: 5. Washington
8) Oklahoma State: 0
9) Michigan State: 5. Notre Dame
10) Wisconsin: 3. Arizona State
11) Ohio State: 1. Miami (25)
12) Alabama: 4. Penn State
13) Missouri: 4. Illinois
14) Oklahoma: 1. Florida State (24), 2. Air Force, 6. Cincinnati
15) Arkansas: 2. Texas A&M (19)
16) Virginia Teach: 5. North Carolina
17) Nevada: 1. Cal
18) South Carolina: 0
19) Texas A&M: 0
20) USC: 0
21) Arizona: 1. Iowa (22)
22) Iowa: 0
23) NC State: 2. UCF, 5. Cincinnati
24) Florida State: 4. BYU
25) Miami: 3. Pitt
TCU and Oklahoma are the only teams that get credited with 3 of their top 6 wins against non-conference opponents. (though Boise State's Toledo win would probably rank as 4th best if it were included.) Only 5 teams (Boise, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Arizona) include victories over top 25 out of conference teams.
So what does this tell us? Most top ranked teams get there by beating high-ranked conference opponents. These high ranked opponents are high-ranked because: 1) they have few losses in conference play and 2) they have victories over inferior teams out of conference.
How is the best way to carry this out? Well, the ACC, SEC and Big-12 have a pretty good model. 1) They have the "BCS" status that allows them to schedule money games against inferior opponents. Most teams will schedule three or four easy wins. 2) They have 12 teams in the conference, yet only play 8 conference games. This minimizes the internal conference carnage.
The Big-10 comes close to the model, with 8 conference games and an 11 team league.
The Big East plays a full round-robin schedule, but due to league size play only 7 conference games. In this case, the five non-conference games works against them. They lack the money, reputation (and quality) to play 5 sure-wins, and often end up with more competitive non-conference match-ups. The complete round-robin schedule also hurts.
Of the BCS conferences, the Pac-10 does the worst job of guaranteeing its BCS riches. The 9 round-robin conference schedule adds in additional conference losses. They also tend to schedule more competitive non-conference games. (Geography is a factor - the WAC and Mountain West are the nearest conferences, and happen to be the best of the non-BCS conferences.)
For the non-BCS conferences, scheduling is the big disadvantage. The lower teams in the conference often schedule body-bag games to bring in revenue, adding to conference loses. Due to poor conference perception, the top teams schedule more competitive games (and fewer "sure wins").
The ranking of each team, with the top nonconference wins (number proceeding is where it ranks in top 6 wins, number after is where the team ranks in top 25).
1) Auburn : 6. Clemson
2) Oregon : 0
3) TCU : 2. Baylor, 5. SMU, 6. Oregon State
4) Boise State: 1. Virginia Tech (16), 3. Oregon State
5) LSU : 4. West Virginia, 5. North Carolina
6) Stanford: 3. Notre Dame
7) Nebraska: 5. Washington
8) Oklahoma State: 0
9) Michigan State: 5. Notre Dame
10) Wisconsin: 3. Arizona State
11) Ohio State: 1. Miami (25)
12) Alabama: 4. Penn State
13) Missouri: 4. Illinois
14) Oklahoma: 1. Florida State (24), 2. Air Force, 6. Cincinnati
15) Arkansas: 2. Texas A&M (19)
16) Virginia Teach: 5. North Carolina
17) Nevada: 1. Cal
18) South Carolina: 0
19) Texas A&M: 0
20) USC: 0
21) Arizona: 1. Iowa (22)
22) Iowa: 0
23) NC State: 2. UCF, 5. Cincinnati
24) Florida State: 4. BYU
25) Miami: 3. Pitt
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Comparing the BCS humans to computers
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1152891
It is intriguing to compare the difference between the computer and "human" scores in the BCS rankings. The computer scores are prohibited from including margin of victory in their score calculations. A commanding 30 point road win counts as much as a last-second hail-Mary for a one point home victory.
From that, we can compare the rankings of the top 9 teams. These all conveniently have the same rankings in both human polls used. They also have no agreement between computers and humans.
This season, Oregon and Boise have been dominating just about everyone they've played. Unfortunately, a lot of their opponents have had fairly mediocre records. Thus, it would make sense to see the humans give them a boost that they computers can't.
LSU and Auburn, on the other hand, have beat a number of highly-touted teams. However, many of their victories have been less than impressive. (LSU only beat a mediocre Tennessee team because the Volunteers had 13 men on the field for the final play.) It makes sense to see these teams docked by the humans.
TCU is a little more difficult to explain. They have played dominated a schedule of "ok" teams. The domination would seem to imply a preference in the human polls. However, the computers slightly favor them. This may be do to the poor performance against a poorly-perceived San Diego State team, coupled with Notre Dame's victory over Utah. (TCU's previous marquee win.) Though perhaps the computers get this right in spite of their limitations. San Diego State's previous two losses can be at least partially attributed to late-game blown calls. The 5-point loss to TCU was their biggest loss of the season. This week Baylor, Utah and Oregon State all loss, hurting the ranking with the computers. However, even last week, the humans had them lower than the computers.
Stanford is another odd case. They are 5th in the computers, yet 8th in the human polls. Most wins have been of the impressive-domination variety. They were also ahead for a good portion of their loss to #1 Oregon. They recently destroyed a ranked Arizona team. Their close victories were over a ranked USC team and against Arizona State in Tempe.
The Stanford rankings are especially baffling when compared to Wisconsin. The Badgers also had a narrow win over ASU (though that game was in Madison). They also squeaked out a victory over the ranked Iowa team. They have had a few blowout wins over mediocre teams. They also had a nice victory over a ranked Ohio State, and a loss to a one-loss Michigan State. The top of the resume seems fairly comparable to Stanford's. At the bottom, however, you have 1-win San Jose State, and 2 win UNLV, Minnesota, and FCS Austin Peay. Stanford has 2 win Washington State and Wake Forest, as well as 6-4 FCS Sacramento State at the bottom. The computers seem to have things right. You have to wonder why the pollsters love Wisconsin so much.
Ohio State also gets the Wisconsin treatment, with a human ranking much higher than the computer ranking. In this case the name is the big factor. After all, the are Ohio State.
The 'name recognition' of Ohio State may also be what gives Nebraska the lower computer ranking. That, and the fact that Texas has shown itself to be really, really bad. Nebraska seems to be pulling the anti-Cal, putting up its worst performances at home.
Team Harris Coaches Comp. SOS
1. Oregon (1) 1st 1st 2nd T-87th
2. Auburn (2) 2nd 2nd 1st 12th
3. TCU (3) 4th 4th T-3rd 55th
4. Boise St. (4) 3rd 3rd T-6th T-87th
5. LSU (5) 6th 6th T-3rd T-8th
6. Stanford (6) 8th 8th 5th T-65th
7. Wisconsin (7) 5th 5th 12th 75th
8. Nebraska (8) 9th 9th 8th T-57th
9. Ohio State (9) 7th 7th 13th T-70th
It is intriguing to compare the difference between the computer and "human" scores in the BCS rankings. The computer scores are prohibited from including margin of victory in their score calculations. A commanding 30 point road win counts as much as a last-second hail-Mary for a one point home victory.
From that, we can compare the rankings of the top 9 teams. These all conveniently have the same rankings in both human polls used. They also have no agreement between computers and humans.
This season, Oregon and Boise have been dominating just about everyone they've played. Unfortunately, a lot of their opponents have had fairly mediocre records. Thus, it would make sense to see the humans give them a boost that they computers can't.
LSU and Auburn, on the other hand, have beat a number of highly-touted teams. However, many of their victories have been less than impressive. (LSU only beat a mediocre Tennessee team because the Volunteers had 13 men on the field for the final play.) It makes sense to see these teams docked by the humans.
TCU is a little more difficult to explain. They have played dominated a schedule of "ok" teams. The domination would seem to imply a preference in the human polls. However, the computers slightly favor them. This may be do to the poor performance against a poorly-perceived San Diego State team, coupled with Notre Dame's victory over Utah. (TCU's previous marquee win.) Though perhaps the computers get this right in spite of their limitations. San Diego State's previous two losses can be at least partially attributed to late-game blown calls. The 5-point loss to TCU was their biggest loss of the season. This week Baylor, Utah and Oregon State all loss, hurting the ranking with the computers. However, even last week, the humans had them lower than the computers.
Stanford is another odd case. They are 5th in the computers, yet 8th in the human polls. Most wins have been of the impressive-domination variety. They were also ahead for a good portion of their loss to #1 Oregon. They recently destroyed a ranked Arizona team. Their close victories were over a ranked USC team and against Arizona State in Tempe.
The Stanford rankings are especially baffling when compared to Wisconsin. The Badgers also had a narrow win over ASU (though that game was in Madison). They also squeaked out a victory over the ranked Iowa team. They have had a few blowout wins over mediocre teams. They also had a nice victory over a ranked Ohio State, and a loss to a one-loss Michigan State. The top of the resume seems fairly comparable to Stanford's. At the bottom, however, you have 1-win San Jose State, and 2 win UNLV, Minnesota, and FCS Austin Peay. Stanford has 2 win Washington State and Wake Forest, as well as 6-4 FCS Sacramento State at the bottom. The computers seem to have things right. You have to wonder why the pollsters love Wisconsin so much.
Ohio State also gets the Wisconsin treatment, with a human ranking much higher than the computer ranking. In this case the name is the big factor. After all, the are Ohio State.
The 'name recognition' of Ohio State may also be what gives Nebraska the lower computer ranking. That, and the fact that Texas has shown itself to be really, really bad. Nebraska seems to be pulling the anti-Cal, putting up its worst performances at home.
Team Harris Coaches Comp. SOS
1. Oregon (1) 1st 1st 2nd T-87th
2. Auburn (2) 2nd 2nd 1st 12th
3. TCU (3) 4th 4th T-3rd 55th
4. Boise St. (4) 3rd 3rd T-6th T-87th
5. LSU (5) 6th 6th T-3rd T-8th
6. Stanford (6) 8th 8th 5th T-65th
7. Wisconsin (7) 5th 5th 12th 75th
8. Nebraska (8) 9th 9th 8th T-57th
9. Ohio State (9) 7th 7th 13th T-70th
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Boise State - TCU rematch?
TCU beat Boise in the Poinsettia Bowl two years ago
Boise beat TCU in the Fiesta Bowl last year
Next year, they will be in the same conference, and have a chance to play each other during the regular season.
For this year, it would only make sense to have them play in the BCS championship game this year.
How far-fetched is it?
Not likely at the present, but still possible.
Oregon looks like the best team around now. They annihilated some mediocre teams in non-conference play. Then they continued on steamrolling some really good teams during conference play. However, they play in the PAC-10. It seems every year, the "great one" suffers some inscrutable loss.
Cal could be the trap. Cal has blown away opponents at home, but been destroyed on the road. Unfortunately, Oregon makes the trip to Berkeley. Fortunately for the Ducks, Cal may have "ended" its curse by barely squeaking by Washington State on the road.
Arizona is in Eugene on a Friday night after a week's rest. Seems like a sure-fire Duck win. But that could be just the cockiness that lets them fall in an unexplained loss. Arizona is also coming in after a week off, and is a ranked program. Oregon will be paying attention.
Oregon State is the final chance for failure. The Beavers have been struggling this year. However, they are another picture of inconsistent. During the non-conference schedule they lost to two top-5 outfits, and beat a decent Big East team. That all seemed fairly normal. However, in conference play, they've beat the 3rd, 5th, and 6th(Tied) schools. Then lost to the two other schools tied for 6th. It wouldn't be too surprising to see them beat Oregon.
As for Auburn, they get the benefit of the doubt by playing in the SEC. They have won some close games over some good teams. The game against Georgia doesn't seem too difficult. The rivalry game against Alabama, however, could be very dangerous. Then the SEC championship game, possibly against a streaking Florida could be another shot for a loss. However, the best shot may be the Newton affair. If he gets declared ineligible, the wins get vacated and Auburn is out of the picture.
Would a one-loss team squeak in? LSU is loved by the computers. However, the squeaker wins make them hard to justify. (They should have had a loss to Tennessee...) The games against Louisiana-Monroe and Mississippi wont do much to help the computer rankings, while Arkansas could be a trap game. They also wont have the bump of the SEC championship game (unless Auburn loses its next two or gets disqualifies.)
Nebraska has Kansas and Colorado coming up which will hurt the computer rankings. The mediocre schedule and the loss to Texas should keep them out. The Big-12 championship game may help, but the quality of opponent would diminish the benefit. (Texas is out. Oklahoma would have two loses. Oklahoma State has only one loss, but doesn't have the street cred of the big boys.) A one-loss Oklahoma State would end with victories over Oklahoma and Nebraska. However, they would also be hard to justify over a no-loss Boise or TCU.
In the Big-10, Wisconsin, Michigan State and the Iowa-Ohio State winner could each end with one loss. However, they end the season on a whimper and wouldn't see much of a move.
Stanford has looked good this season, though the loss to Oregon probably keeps them out. Utah's loss to TCU ended their BCS dreams.
Odds are probably about 50/50 that one non-AQ makes it to the championship, and not much lower that we see two. Maybe that is just what we need to end this ugly system. (But then, what will college football fans argue over?)
Boise beat TCU in the Fiesta Bowl last year
Next year, they will be in the same conference, and have a chance to play each other during the regular season.
For this year, it would only make sense to have them play in the BCS championship game this year.
How far-fetched is it?
Not likely at the present, but still possible.
Oregon looks like the best team around now. They annihilated some mediocre teams in non-conference play. Then they continued on steamrolling some really good teams during conference play. However, they play in the PAC-10. It seems every year, the "great one" suffers some inscrutable loss.
Cal could be the trap. Cal has blown away opponents at home, but been destroyed on the road. Unfortunately, Oregon makes the trip to Berkeley. Fortunately for the Ducks, Cal may have "ended" its curse by barely squeaking by Washington State on the road.
Arizona is in Eugene on a Friday night after a week's rest. Seems like a sure-fire Duck win. But that could be just the cockiness that lets them fall in an unexplained loss. Arizona is also coming in after a week off, and is a ranked program. Oregon will be paying attention.
Oregon State is the final chance for failure. The Beavers have been struggling this year. However, they are another picture of inconsistent. During the non-conference schedule they lost to two top-5 outfits, and beat a decent Big East team. That all seemed fairly normal. However, in conference play, they've beat the 3rd, 5th, and 6th(Tied) schools. Then lost to the two other schools tied for 6th. It wouldn't be too surprising to see them beat Oregon.
As for Auburn, they get the benefit of the doubt by playing in the SEC. They have won some close games over some good teams. The game against Georgia doesn't seem too difficult. The rivalry game against Alabama, however, could be very dangerous. Then the SEC championship game, possibly against a streaking Florida could be another shot for a loss. However, the best shot may be the Newton affair. If he gets declared ineligible, the wins get vacated and Auburn is out of the picture.
Would a one-loss team squeak in? LSU is loved by the computers. However, the squeaker wins make them hard to justify. (They should have had a loss to Tennessee...) The games against Louisiana-Monroe and Mississippi wont do much to help the computer rankings, while Arkansas could be a trap game. They also wont have the bump of the SEC championship game (unless Auburn loses its next two or gets disqualifies.)
Nebraska has Kansas and Colorado coming up which will hurt the computer rankings. The mediocre schedule and the loss to Texas should keep them out. The Big-12 championship game may help, but the quality of opponent would diminish the benefit. (Texas is out. Oklahoma would have two loses. Oklahoma State has only one loss, but doesn't have the street cred of the big boys.) A one-loss Oklahoma State would end with victories over Oklahoma and Nebraska. However, they would also be hard to justify over a no-loss Boise or TCU.
In the Big-10, Wisconsin, Michigan State and the Iowa-Ohio State winner could each end with one loss. However, they end the season on a whimper and wouldn't see much of a move.
Stanford has looked good this season, though the loss to Oregon probably keeps them out. Utah's loss to TCU ended their BCS dreams.
Odds are probably about 50/50 that one non-AQ makes it to the championship, and not much lower that we see two. Maybe that is just what we need to end this ugly system. (But then, what will college football fans argue over?)
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Oh, Stanford
I should have known. Once Stanford makes it to the top 10, they're destined to lose the next game. But, I still had my hopes up. Could they even challenge for the championship? But, no. They jumped up to a big lead over Oregon in the first half, and then...
They decided not to show up for the second half. Oh well. There is still a chance for a good season.
More baffling is what happened in the rankings. Oregon turned on the quack attack for a second half pounding of Stanford. Boise State pummeled lowly New Mexico State (Boise's backups outscore NMSU on their own.) From a schedule perspective, all of Boise's previous opponents also won. Ohio State struggled with mediocre Illinois. Alabama also managed an annihilation of Florida. So it seemed obvious, Alabama, Oregon and Boise were the top three. But no, for some reason, Ohio State stays second and Oregon passes Boise for third. Oh whatever. Polls are always annoying.
They decided not to show up for the second half. Oh well. There is still a chance for a good season.
More baffling is what happened in the rankings. Oregon turned on the quack attack for a second half pounding of Stanford. Boise State pummeled lowly New Mexico State (Boise's backups outscore NMSU on their own.) From a schedule perspective, all of Boise's previous opponents also won. Ohio State struggled with mediocre Illinois. Alabama also managed an annihilation of Florida. So it seemed obvious, Alabama, Oregon and Boise were the top three. But no, for some reason, Ohio State stays second and Oregon passes Boise for third. Oh whatever. Polls are always annoying.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
College Football playoff
What are the impediments to a college football playoff?
Money and ingrained interests.
College Presidents talk about academics and season length, but we all know that is bogus. After all, in the past few years, the season has increased to 12 games and conferences are adding conference playoffs. Bowl games are also being pushed out well in to January - often after classes have started.
So what can we do to maximize revenue and keep the fans happy with a playoff?
Move some games to the "early" season, especially the cold weather bowls. Detroit in late August sounds a lot better than Detroit in late December. These could be showdowns between expected powerhouses this year. (They would be scheduled after the end of the last season.)
Institute a 16 team playoff. Every conference champion gets a nod, as well as some at large teams. This way, a team can still lose an early season "show down" and make it to the playoffs. There would also still be room in the early season for low-revenue teams to be scheduled as "cupcake paydays".
Start the playoffs a week after Thanksgiving. Play games every Saturday, take a week off for Christmas, and have the championship game on New Years Day.
As an alternative, use an eight team playoff with "mega conference champions getting seeds". (This assumes Pac-10, Big-10 and SEC expand to 16 teams, with Big-12 and WAC dissolving) The seeding of the "smaller" conference playoffs could be determined prior to the season based on past performance. (Thus, the best performing conference would play the worst performing one.) The championship games would be in "known" locations, making travel planning easy for teams.
Pac-16
Big-16
SEC-16
MWC vs CUSA
ACC vs Sun Belt
Big East vs MAC
At Large
At Large
With this schedule, the two top teams would play 11 regular season games, 1 conference championship, and three playoff games for a total of 15 games. This is the same number of games typically played by bowl teams that play a conference championship and a road game at Hawaii.
One of the current regular season games could be transformed in to a "preseason" game. This would give the teams a chance to fill the stadium early in a "less stressful" environment. However, with each conference champion getting a guaranteed playoff spot, this could even be a "real" game without the negative repercussions.
Post season poll games can still be played by the non-playoff teams. (Early exiters from the playoffs may also get a chance at bowl games. These will still have the same impact on the championship as the do today.)
From a financial perspective, the 4 first round playoff games should be similar to the current non-championship BCS bowls. The championship game should be even more of a money maker than the BCS championship. The two semifinal games are pure gravy added on top. Many of the other bowls would still remain.
And finally preseason guarantee games. The early season "bowl" games could provide a heavy financial payout, and provide an opportunity for "last minute" scheduling of current big powers. With the playoffs and early season bowls, even a team stuck in a week conference could get some good games. A "minimum guarantee" based on stadium size or revenue could also be put in place to add some balance to one-off games. (Though without the BCS this is not as important as it was.)
In the end, we have all teams getting more revenue, most teams playing the same number of games, and much more exciting games during the regular season.
Money and ingrained interests.
College Presidents talk about academics and season length, but we all know that is bogus. After all, in the past few years, the season has increased to 12 games and conferences are adding conference playoffs. Bowl games are also being pushed out well in to January - often after classes have started.
So what can we do to maximize revenue and keep the fans happy with a playoff?
Move some games to the "early" season, especially the cold weather bowls. Detroit in late August sounds a lot better than Detroit in late December. These could be showdowns between expected powerhouses this year. (They would be scheduled after the end of the last season.)
Institute a 16 team playoff. Every conference champion gets a nod, as well as some at large teams. This way, a team can still lose an early season "show down" and make it to the playoffs. There would also still be room in the early season for low-revenue teams to be scheduled as "cupcake paydays".
Start the playoffs a week after Thanksgiving. Play games every Saturday, take a week off for Christmas, and have the championship game on New Years Day.
As an alternative, use an eight team playoff with "mega conference champions getting seeds". (This assumes Pac-10, Big-10 and SEC expand to 16 teams, with Big-12 and WAC dissolving) The seeding of the "smaller" conference playoffs could be determined prior to the season based on past performance. (Thus, the best performing conference would play the worst performing one.) The championship games would be in "known" locations, making travel planning easy for teams.
Pac-16
Big-16
SEC-16
MWC vs CUSA
ACC vs Sun Belt
Big East vs MAC
At Large
At Large
With this schedule, the two top teams would play 11 regular season games, 1 conference championship, and three playoff games for a total of 15 games. This is the same number of games typically played by bowl teams that play a conference championship and a road game at Hawaii.
One of the current regular season games could be transformed in to a "preseason" game. This would give the teams a chance to fill the stadium early in a "less stressful" environment. However, with each conference champion getting a guaranteed playoff spot, this could even be a "real" game without the negative repercussions.
Post season poll games can still be played by the non-playoff teams. (Early exiters from the playoffs may also get a chance at bowl games. These will still have the same impact on the championship as the do today.)
From a financial perspective, the 4 first round playoff games should be similar to the current non-championship BCS bowls. The championship game should be even more of a money maker than the BCS championship. The two semifinal games are pure gravy added on top. Many of the other bowls would still remain.
And finally preseason guarantee games. The early season "bowl" games could provide a heavy financial payout, and provide an opportunity for "last minute" scheduling of current big powers. With the playoffs and early season bowls, even a team stuck in a week conference could get some good games. A "minimum guarantee" based on stadium size or revenue could also be put in place to add some balance to one-off games. (Though without the BCS this is not as important as it was.)
In the end, we have all teams getting more revenue, most teams playing the same number of games, and much more exciting games during the regular season.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Boise State over Virginia Tech and WAC power
Boise State knocked off ACC frontrunner Virginia Tech.
Fresno State knocked off defending Big East champion Cincinnati.
And the WAC is supposed to be a weak conference?
A bunch of WAC teams also beat FCS teams.
The loses? The middle of the conference lost close games to top-15 teams, while a predicted last place finisher was blown out on the road to a number 1 team. Suppose these were reverse and instead of San Jose State playing at Alabama, we had Boise State playing a Mississippi school or Vandy on the blue turf. Or have Kansas visit Fresno. Or even Stanford at Hawaii.
In fair fights, the WAC has shown it can compete. Perhaps Boise's president is right that we just need more "home and homes" to compete on a fair playing field.
Fresno State knocked off defending Big East champion Cincinnati.
And the WAC is supposed to be a weak conference?
A bunch of WAC teams also beat FCS teams.
The loses? The middle of the conference lost close games to top-15 teams, while a predicted last place finisher was blown out on the road to a number 1 team. Suppose these were reverse and instead of San Jose State playing at Alabama, we had Boise State playing a Mississippi school or Vandy on the blue turf. Or have Kansas visit Fresno. Or even Stanford at Hawaii.
In fair fights, the WAC has shown it can compete. Perhaps Boise's president is right that we just need more "home and homes" to compete on a fair playing field.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
TCU vs. Boise State in BCS championship?
In 2008, Boise State played TCU in the Poinsettia bowl
In 2009, they had a rematch in the Fiesta Bowl
With the game moving later and later, the BCS championship game could be in line this year.
Never before has one non-AQ team made it to the game - could we have two?
We should know a little more by the end of this weekend.
Both play Oregon State early in the season. Oregon State tends to lose its early games, then finish strong. If Oregon State goes undefeated in all but these two games, that will help the ratings, and eliminate the Pac-10 from consideration.
Pitt is a favorite in the Big East. They have already managed to lose to Utah. The Big East is not much of a threat for the championship game, but if Pitt runs the table for the remainder of the season and Utah finishes with a lone loss to TCU, it could only help things.
Also in the Big East, Cincy is playing Fresno. A Bulldog victory could help the WAC, especially if the Bearcats do well the remainder of the season.
For the ACC, Virginia Tech is the favorite. If Boise State takes care of business and Tech wins everything else, it will keep the power position.
Just three more conferences to go - and those happen to include every currently eligible team that has played in the past few championship games.
For the Big 12, ideally Oklahoma would win the championship - after losing to Utah State and Air Force. Ok. That's probably not too likely. However, with a 4 game stretch against Florida State, Air Force and at Cincinnati before the showdown with Texas, there is ample time to flop. They could easily overlook Air Force or Cincy. Lets have them fall to the Falcons before beating the longhorns. The longhorns will then take their vengeance out on Nebraska who will in turn clobber Oklahoma in the Big-12 championship game. (Though the cornhuskers would already had two loses - with another non-conference loss to Washington in Seattle) Every Big-12 team would have at least two loses - including some to MWC teams, thus keeping them down in the standings.
The Big-10 could be a little more of a challenge getting to two loses. However, it would also be tougher justifying a one-loss team over an undefeated TCU or Boise. Wisconsin opens with a late game at UNLV. They could easily fall asleep here as the Rebels 'ASU' them. This would wipe out any chance of the championship game, while helping the MWC. If they in turn take vengeance on Ohio State and Iowa, that leaves only Penn State as a possible interloper. However, with road games at OSU, Alabama and Iowa, Penn State is likely to fall at least twice. This would pretty much eliminate the Big-10.
Now on the SEC. This conference has won the last few championships - including one by a two-loss LSU. How do you exclude them? Florida could be the first one out of the picture. They did not look too hot against Miami of Ohio. Next week, South Florida comes to town. The Bulls have a habit of starting strong, only to flop down the stretch. They could pull off a victory here. With consecutive games against Alabama and LSU, the gators will probably have at least one more loss.
For LSU, there is always the possibility that North Carolina looks past the distractions and somehow manages to win. However, more likely come in a conference game. LSU is ranked low enough now that one loss should be enough to keep them out of the top spot. Similar story for Arkansas, who may stumble to a fired up Texas A&M.
Alabama is ranked first and would need a couple good loses to keep them out of the top spot. The road game against Arkansas (right before the Florida game) could be a great chance to slip up. Add in a hungry Auburn in the rivalry game and they could be out of the championship picture.
With these games, it could be possible for a Boise vs. TCU championship game - especially if some MWC and WAC teams make a good showing in some of their other non-conference game. With this being the last year they are in separate conferences, this is the last year they an really continue the rivalry in the post season. The matchup requires a lot of things to happen "just right", but doesn't require any massive upsets (though some could really help.) By Tuesday we should have a more clear picture of the possibilities.
In 2009, they had a rematch in the Fiesta Bowl
With the game moving later and later, the BCS championship game could be in line this year.
Never before has one non-AQ team made it to the game - could we have two?
We should know a little more by the end of this weekend.
Both play Oregon State early in the season. Oregon State tends to lose its early games, then finish strong. If Oregon State goes undefeated in all but these two games, that will help the ratings, and eliminate the Pac-10 from consideration.
Pitt is a favorite in the Big East. They have already managed to lose to Utah. The Big East is not much of a threat for the championship game, but if Pitt runs the table for the remainder of the season and Utah finishes with a lone loss to TCU, it could only help things.
Also in the Big East, Cincy is playing Fresno. A Bulldog victory could help the WAC, especially if the Bearcats do well the remainder of the season.
For the ACC, Virginia Tech is the favorite. If Boise State takes care of business and Tech wins everything else, it will keep the power position.
Just three more conferences to go - and those happen to include every currently eligible team that has played in the past few championship games.
For the Big 12, ideally Oklahoma would win the championship - after losing to Utah State and Air Force. Ok. That's probably not too likely. However, with a 4 game stretch against Florida State, Air Force and at Cincinnati before the showdown with Texas, there is ample time to flop. They could easily overlook Air Force or Cincy. Lets have them fall to the Falcons before beating the longhorns. The longhorns will then take their vengeance out on Nebraska who will in turn clobber Oklahoma in the Big-12 championship game. (Though the cornhuskers would already had two loses - with another non-conference loss to Washington in Seattle) Every Big-12 team would have at least two loses - including some to MWC teams, thus keeping them down in the standings.
The Big-10 could be a little more of a challenge getting to two loses. However, it would also be tougher justifying a one-loss team over an undefeated TCU or Boise. Wisconsin opens with a late game at UNLV. They could easily fall asleep here as the Rebels 'ASU' them. This would wipe out any chance of the championship game, while helping the MWC. If they in turn take vengeance on Ohio State and Iowa, that leaves only Penn State as a possible interloper. However, with road games at OSU, Alabama and Iowa, Penn State is likely to fall at least twice. This would pretty much eliminate the Big-10.
Now on the SEC. This conference has won the last few championships - including one by a two-loss LSU. How do you exclude them? Florida could be the first one out of the picture. They did not look too hot against Miami of Ohio. Next week, South Florida comes to town. The Bulls have a habit of starting strong, only to flop down the stretch. They could pull off a victory here. With consecutive games against Alabama and LSU, the gators will probably have at least one more loss.
For LSU, there is always the possibility that North Carolina looks past the distractions and somehow manages to win. However, more likely come in a conference game. LSU is ranked low enough now that one loss should be enough to keep them out of the top spot. Similar story for Arkansas, who may stumble to a fired up Texas A&M.
Alabama is ranked first and would need a couple good loses to keep them out of the top spot. The road game against Arkansas (right before the Florida game) could be a great chance to slip up. Add in a hungry Auburn in the rivalry game and they could be out of the championship picture.
With these games, it could be possible for a Boise vs. TCU championship game - especially if some MWC and WAC teams make a good showing in some of their other non-conference game. With this being the last year they are in separate conferences, this is the last year they an really continue the rivalry in the post season. The matchup requires a lot of things to happen "just right", but doesn't require any massive upsets (though some could really help.) By Tuesday we should have a more clear picture of the possibilities.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Winners and losers in NCAA conference expansion
The Big-10 is exploring adding an additional team. The Pac-10 is looking at expanding. The Mountain West would like a BCS bid. Who will be the winners and losers?
Most Likely Winner: Utah. In almost all scenarios they would end up ahead. If the Big-10 poaches a Big-East school, that will improve the position of the Mountain West vs. Big East. A team like Pitt would be almost impossible to replace. If the Mountain West added Boise State it would make them shoulders above the Big East and just about guarantee an automatic bid (perhaps even replacing the Big East's bid.)
If the Pac-10 expanded, Utah is one of the most likely candidates, geographically, economically and culturally. The only Pac-10 expansion scenario that wouldn't include Utah would be an unlikely Texas bid - which could leave Utah in prime position to take a spot in the Big-12.
The worst-case scenario for Utah would be for Notre Dame to join the Big 10. This would free up a "basketball only" spot in the Big East, and let the Big East grab another basketball/football team. While replacing Pitt with East Carolina would hurt the conference, adding East Carolina would help the conference in football.
Most Likely Loser: Big-12. The Big-12 could very well be on life-support if the expansion scenarios play out. The top candidates for expansion are schools on the periphery of the Big-12: Missouri and Colorado. If either of these leave, they take a whole state with them, with little opportunity to get it back without stretching way beyond the current 'footprint'. There is pretty much no other big program in Missouri. In Colorado, the conference could attempt to hold its position by seeking Colorado State or Air Force. However, they have much less sway on the Denver TVs than Colorado. And if the Mountain West gets an automatic bid, they would have little incentive to switch conferences.
TCU, Houston, Rice and SMU would be good candidates to join the conference, bringing it closer to the old Southwest Conference. They all have shown signs of life, playing competitive football in at least one of the last two seasons. TCU is the powerhouse of them, and could probably compete for the Big-12 championship right off the bat.
The big problem is that they don't add any new markets to the conference. With Texas and Texas A&M, the Dallas and Houston markets are well covered. While TCU adds the Ft. Worth market to the Mountain West, they add pretty much nothing to the Big-12. A move to the conference would be a media loss for both.
Assuming Colorado and Utah go to the Pac-10, BYU would probably be the best possible replacement. They travel well and have a significant following, without being two far out of the conference footprint. They would also fit nicely in the northern division.
If Missouri and Colorado leave, things get dicier. Perhaps the conference says goodbye to markets and goes for TCU and another Texas team (or even all 4 to expand to a 14 team conference) Or perhaps the conference becomes west oriented with Air Force and BYU. At least that gives them a presence in those markets.
The timing matters: If the Big-10 said today that Pitt really is going to join the conference, the Big East would have to start moving quickly. With the eight non-football teams, the conference really can't easily expand to a 12 team football conference. Perhaps they "combine" with the Mountain West to create an east-west championship game for a BCS bid. This could forestall a Utah/BYU jump. Or maybe the Big-12 jumps the gun and invites TCU in as an insurance policy. Or maybe there is a total left-field move with unexpected teams jumping conferences.
Most Likely Winner: Utah. In almost all scenarios they would end up ahead. If the Big-10 poaches a Big-East school, that will improve the position of the Mountain West vs. Big East. A team like Pitt would be almost impossible to replace. If the Mountain West added Boise State it would make them shoulders above the Big East and just about guarantee an automatic bid (perhaps even replacing the Big East's bid.)
If the Pac-10 expanded, Utah is one of the most likely candidates, geographically, economically and culturally. The only Pac-10 expansion scenario that wouldn't include Utah would be an unlikely Texas bid - which could leave Utah in prime position to take a spot in the Big-12.
The worst-case scenario for Utah would be for Notre Dame to join the Big 10. This would free up a "basketball only" spot in the Big East, and let the Big East grab another basketball/football team. While replacing Pitt with East Carolina would hurt the conference, adding East Carolina would help the conference in football.
Most Likely Loser: Big-12. The Big-12 could very well be on life-support if the expansion scenarios play out. The top candidates for expansion are schools on the periphery of the Big-12: Missouri and Colorado. If either of these leave, they take a whole state with them, with little opportunity to get it back without stretching way beyond the current 'footprint'. There is pretty much no other big program in Missouri. In Colorado, the conference could attempt to hold its position by seeking Colorado State or Air Force. However, they have much less sway on the Denver TVs than Colorado. And if the Mountain West gets an automatic bid, they would have little incentive to switch conferences.
TCU, Houston, Rice and SMU would be good candidates to join the conference, bringing it closer to the old Southwest Conference. They all have shown signs of life, playing competitive football in at least one of the last two seasons. TCU is the powerhouse of them, and could probably compete for the Big-12 championship right off the bat.
The big problem is that they don't add any new markets to the conference. With Texas and Texas A&M, the Dallas and Houston markets are well covered. While TCU adds the Ft. Worth market to the Mountain West, they add pretty much nothing to the Big-12. A move to the conference would be a media loss for both.
Assuming Colorado and Utah go to the Pac-10, BYU would probably be the best possible replacement. They travel well and have a significant following, without being two far out of the conference footprint. They would also fit nicely in the northern division.
If Missouri and Colorado leave, things get dicier. Perhaps the conference says goodbye to markets and goes for TCU and another Texas team (or even all 4 to expand to a 14 team conference) Or perhaps the conference becomes west oriented with Air Force and BYU. At least that gives them a presence in those markets.
The timing matters: If the Big-10 said today that Pitt really is going to join the conference, the Big East would have to start moving quickly. With the eight non-football teams, the conference really can't easily expand to a 12 team football conference. Perhaps they "combine" with the Mountain West to create an east-west championship game for a BCS bid. This could forestall a Utah/BYU jump. Or maybe the Big-12 jumps the gun and invites TCU in as an insurance policy. Or maybe there is a total left-field move with unexpected teams jumping conferences.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Pac-10 Expansion Scenarios
The Pac-10 has mentioned that it is joining the Big-10 in being 'open' to conference expansion. The decisions made could lead to a spiral effect in all the conferences.
Big 10: Add Pitt (They have a good market, so they'll go for another big Pennsylvania school to balance with Penn State.)
Pac-10: Add Utah and Colorado. (They'll go for entering new TV markets with major research schools.)
In this secenario, the Big East, Big-12 and Mountain West would have to scramble for new teams. The Big East may go for Memphis to replace Pitt. They may not have many choices. With a large basketball-only portion of the conference, the Big East would have a tough time adding any additional schools.
The Mountain West would quickly add Boise State. Teams like Fresno and Nevada may be next on the list. With the loss of Utah, the Mountain West may have a tougher sell for a BCS inclusion. However, the formation of 5 'mega-conferences' may be beneficial. The Big East and Mountain West could form their own lose 'mega-conference', with the winner of each conference playing for an automatic BCS birth. (This would also provide a nice little bit of additional revenue, and help forestall demotion of the Big East.)
The Big-12 would have bigger conundrum. TCU would be an easy choice. However, with Texas Tech, Texas, and Texas A&M, the Dallas/Ft. Worth market is already covered. Thus TCU would not add any new markets. It would also create a mess with the south division. Another alternative would be to add TCU, SMU and Houston. This would revive the old Southwest Conference (minus Rice). This would allow for an all-Texas south division. Or alternatively, they could try to get Memphis (or even BYU.)
What should be the criteria for picking schools for a conference?
Some useful stats could be:
1) Home football and basketball stadium size and attendance. These are the big money earners for a conference. It would be best to have a team that could hold their own here.
2) Director's Cup Standings. This is an indication of the breadth of the overall athletic program. The Pac-10, always ranks high here. Having a team that fields teams in a large number of sports helps to keep all things viable.
3) Football and basketball rankings. A team that has good postseason runs to add the the conference coffers would be ideal.
4) Us News Ranking. Though there are a million gripes about these rankings, it does put an easy number on the quality of academics at a school. Most of the Pac-10 schools rank high here, so a similar academic heavyweight would be desired.
5) Non-overlapping TV Market size. This is a little more tricky. You can look at the local area and assume that a lot of the locals would be fans of the team. However, you also have to look at where the aluni and other fans are. For example, there are probably more Texas grads in Ft. Worth than TCU grads, thus there is little new market added with Texas and TCU in the same conference.
6) Culture, Synergies, rivalries and other intangibles. TCU could probably sell a lot more tickets to games vs. A&M and Texas than New Mexico and UNLV. BYU's conservative culture may clash with the liberal Pac-10 culture. The Pac-10 has schools in twos, thus adding BYU and Utah may be a logical fit.
Big 10: Add Pitt (They have a good market, so they'll go for another big Pennsylvania school to balance with Penn State.)
Pac-10: Add Utah and Colorado. (They'll go for entering new TV markets with major research schools.)
In this secenario, the Big East, Big-12 and Mountain West would have to scramble for new teams. The Big East may go for Memphis to replace Pitt. They may not have many choices. With a large basketball-only portion of the conference, the Big East would have a tough time adding any additional schools.
The Mountain West would quickly add Boise State. Teams like Fresno and Nevada may be next on the list. With the loss of Utah, the Mountain West may have a tougher sell for a BCS inclusion. However, the formation of 5 'mega-conferences' may be beneficial. The Big East and Mountain West could form their own lose 'mega-conference', with the winner of each conference playing for an automatic BCS birth. (This would also provide a nice little bit of additional revenue, and help forestall demotion of the Big East.)
The Big-12 would have bigger conundrum. TCU would be an easy choice. However, with Texas Tech, Texas, and Texas A&M, the Dallas/Ft. Worth market is already covered. Thus TCU would not add any new markets. It would also create a mess with the south division. Another alternative would be to add TCU, SMU and Houston. This would revive the old Southwest Conference (minus Rice). This would allow for an all-Texas south division. Or alternatively, they could try to get Memphis (or even BYU.)
What should be the criteria for picking schools for a conference?
Some useful stats could be:
1) Home football and basketball stadium size and attendance. These are the big money earners for a conference. It would be best to have a team that could hold their own here.
2) Director's Cup Standings. This is an indication of the breadth of the overall athletic program. The Pac-10, always ranks high here. Having a team that fields teams in a large number of sports helps to keep all things viable.
3) Football and basketball rankings. A team that has good postseason runs to add the the conference coffers would be ideal.
4) Us News Ranking. Though there are a million gripes about these rankings, it does put an easy number on the quality of academics at a school. Most of the Pac-10 schools rank high here, so a similar academic heavyweight would be desired.
5) Non-overlapping TV Market size. This is a little more tricky. You can look at the local area and assume that a lot of the locals would be fans of the team. However, you also have to look at where the aluni and other fans are. For example, there are probably more Texas grads in Ft. Worth than TCU grads, thus there is little new market added with Texas and TCU in the same conference.
6) Culture, Synergies, rivalries and other intangibles. TCU could probably sell a lot more tickets to games vs. A&M and Texas than New Mexico and UNLV. BYU's conservative culture may clash with the liberal Pac-10 culture. The Pac-10 has schools in twos, thus adding BYU and Utah may be a logical fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)