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 sec. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sec. Show all posts
Sunday, December 08, 2013
Saturday, December 29, 2012
The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game
Lawrence Taylor willed himself to destroy the quarterback via the blind side. This lead to a changing of the way football was played. Unfortunately, there was a limit to Taylor's willpower, and he wasn't able to will himself out of an addiction to drugs.
Michael Oher similarly exhibited strong willpower. He grew up in a broken "family" in the projects of Memphis. He was in and out of school, and bounced around from place to place, trying to avoid being taken away by child protective services. His goal was to become the next Michael Jordan. He continued to work at it, even as his body grew to enormous proportions.
Through a series of fortunate events and coincidences, he was able to attend a private, predominantly white, Christian school on the "good" side of Memphis. There he was adopted by wealthy white family who helped train him on how to navigate the wealthy, "white" world. He was also discovered by the football coach. Oher's size and speed allowed him to become the centerpiece of the team's offense. Would he have had these opportunities if he were not a great athlete? Almost certainly not. However, even if he were a great athlete, if he didn't have the support network, he would never have succeeded in sports, and would probably still be on the streets.
He was recruited by many schools, and interrogated by the NCAA for rules violations. (The dark underbelly of college athletics is well exposed.) He had to a cram in many last-minute correspondence classes to get his GPA high enough to play college football.
For many inner-city kids, sports seem to be the only way out of the projects. Yet they are caught in a catch-22 where success in sports requires you to first get "out of the projects" and perform well enough in school to play for your high school and make it to college before you can finally make it to the pros and get a paycheck. There are so many chances to fail in the process, with the best "consolation prize" often being work as a gang bouncer. Does glorification of the athlete really benefit the community as a whole?
This book does present a nice uplifting story, told primarily from the point of view of Oher's supporters. (Oher is remarkably silent in this book, though he has since written his own book.) It is clear that he was strong willpower and character, but needed some guidance and opportunity to channel it. He knew he would succeed and he did.
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Conference Hierarchy
With all the shuffling around of conferences, a clear hierarchy is being established among conferences:
1) First Tier: Schools come to these conferences to stay:
Big-10 [Has taken new members from Big-12, ACC, Big East]
Pac-12 [Has taken new members from Mountain West and Big-12]
SEC [Has taken new members from Big-12]
2) Second Tier: Conferences have some issues. Some teams may want to leave, but teams from lower tier would love to join.
Big-12 [Has taken new members from Big-12 and Big East/Mountain West (TCU had planned to move to Big East, but was still in MWC when moved)
ACC [Almost exclusively raids Big East]
3) Big East
Has historically been the transfer station from Conference USA to ACC. Recently has sent some teams to Big-12 and Big-10 as well. Now is getting desperate and taking teams from just about all the conferences below.
4) Mountain West and Conference USA
Picks the cream of the MAC and Sun Belt crop. (MWC has historically raided the WAC, but there is not anything left to raid.)
5) MAC and Sun Belt
New teams to the FBS ranks are likely to land here
6) WAC
Dead to the football world now
On field performance somewhat mirrors the hierarchy, though with a few changes.
1) SEC: Unless there is a very compelling reason, they'll play in the championship
2) Big-10, Pac-12, Big-12: A team from here would be a credible champion
3) ACC: If there is no one better above, they'll make it
4) Big East: They have a chance if there are no better options
5) Mountain West: If everyone else is having a down year, and a team here has fewer losses than everyone else, there is a chance they can go.
6) Conference USA: Same with MWC, but slightly lower
7) MAC and Sun Belt. Good luck. Perhaps if everyone else has a couple loses and a team from here goes undefeated with a victory over Alabama, there may be a chance.
1) First Tier: Schools come to these conferences to stay:
Big-10 [Has taken new members from Big-12, ACC, Big East]
Pac-12 [Has taken new members from Mountain West and Big-12]
SEC [Has taken new members from Big-12]
2) Second Tier: Conferences have some issues. Some teams may want to leave, but teams from lower tier would love to join.
Big-12 [Has taken new members from Big-12 and Big East/Mountain West (TCU had planned to move to Big East, but was still in MWC when moved)
ACC [Almost exclusively raids Big East]
3) Big East
Has historically been the transfer station from Conference USA to ACC. Recently has sent some teams to Big-12 and Big-10 as well. Now is getting desperate and taking teams from just about all the conferences below.
4) Mountain West and Conference USA
Picks the cream of the MAC and Sun Belt crop. (MWC has historically raided the WAC, but there is not anything left to raid.)
5) MAC and Sun Belt
New teams to the FBS ranks are likely to land here
6) WAC
Dead to the football world now
On field performance somewhat mirrors the hierarchy, though with a few changes.
1) SEC: Unless there is a very compelling reason, they'll play in the championship
2) Big-10, Pac-12, Big-12: A team from here would be a credible champion
3) ACC: If there is no one better above, they'll make it
4) Big East: They have a chance if there are no better options
5) Mountain West: If everyone else is having a down year, and a team here has fewer losses than everyone else, there is a chance they can go.
6) Conference USA: Same with MWC, but slightly lower
7) MAC and Sun Belt. Good luck. Perhaps if everyone else has a couple loses and a team from here goes undefeated with a victory over Alabama, there may be a chance.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Conference Realignment
College football has now aligned itself to five major conferences of 64 teams:
SEC 14
PAC-12 12
Big-10 14
Big-12 10
ACC 14
---------
64
On the football field, the SEC is the clear champion, in terms of on-field performance and attendance. The ACC is the laggard of the Big-5. (Though it is pretty good at basketball.) Looking at football attendance as a barometer for school programs, there is a clear separation of the "big-5" conferences and the "little-5".
The top 50 major teams are all independents or in major conferences. The bottom 35 teams are all in "minor" conferences. The Big-East was always a borderline AQ conference in the BCS. With all the poaching that has been going on, it is now very clearly in the "lower tier".
Are there many big-5 conference teams that shouldn't be there? There are not many teams that are in big conferences, yet are not in the top 64 in attendance. Duke, Northwestern and Vanderbilt are all the "academic" powers in their conferences and are located in major media markets. Duke also has a pretty impressive basketball record TCU's attendance numbers are an aberration due to stadium construction. The most recent attendance would put them closer to the 50s. (They are also sitting in the #5 media market.)
This leaves Washington State, Wake Forest, Baylor and Syracuse as the outliers. Baylor and Syracuse are "right on the border" of being top 64. Baylor also has Texas politics to thank for its position in the Big-12. They both have pretty good basketball programs. This gets us down to just Wake Forest and Washington State as "questionable". Both have had a pretty ugly recent history in football. However, they both have been long term members of their conferences and have well established rivalries.
What changes would you make? Notre Dame and BYU are the two big outliers in the "have nots". Notre Dame already has a non-football membership with the ACC and an in to the "big bowls". (They also have a current "BCS automatic inclusion" clause, but they didn't need to use it due to being first in the standings.) Notre Dame's attendance also exceeds that of all ACC schools. BYU is trickier. The Pac-12 would be a logical place, geographically and attendance-wise, but there are some politics involved. A Big-12 partnership may also make sense.
Beyond the independents, there are no "slam-dunk" options. South Florida is #52. However, it tends to draw a local Tampa audience. Florida State (ACC) and Florida (SEC) both draw from the entire state. Low-caliber academics would exclude the Big-10 or Pac-12. It could be an option if the Big-12 decided to make a run for Florida. However, the quality of the overall sports program lags behind other schools.
East Carolina is in a somewhat similar situation. Geographically, they would fit in the ACC. However, the conference is already loaded with North Carolina schools. East Carolina would lag behind many in academics and non-football sports. SEC lacks schools in North Carolina. However, East Carolina could probably not compete well with the SEC schools. Another Big-12 option?
Connecticut seems like an ideal expansion target. They are in an untapped market (and they could probably claim part of the New York City market also.) Basketball is excellent and football has spurts of quality. Academics are also decent (but lack of AAU membership would turn off the Big-10) AAC would be a logical place to go. However, you get the impression that the AAC is waiting for somebody to get poached before grabbing UConn.
At #61, Central Florida has the same problems as South Florida. At least Orlando doesn't have a pro football team. Hawaii at #63 is in Hawaii. Its a nice vacation, but it is a long way out there. Academics would also be an issue. After that you get Air Force, Fresno State, Navy, UTEP and Boise. Perhaps the national audience of the service academies would appeal to a conference. (The ACC could look at Navy to replace the Maryland market.) Fresno is an academic lightweight in California's central valley. The Pac-12 wouldn't dare go near, but maybe the Big-12 trying to break in to California? (Though of late, #76 San Diego State is out-drawing.) UTEP is in El Paso, which is pretty much the middle of nowhere. Boise has had a lot of football success and is in a growing city.
"Non-Big" Outliers
Notre Dame - 15th in Attendance
BYU - 27th in Attendance
South Florida - 52
East Carolina - 55
UConn - 60
Central Florida - 61
Hawaii - 63
Air Force - 65
Fresno State - 67
Navy - 70
UTEP - 71
Boise - 72
Cinncinnati - 74
Army - 75
San Diego State - 76
Southern Miss - 78
Memphis - 80
Houston - 89
Marshall - 82
New Mexico - 83
"Big Conference" Outliers
Duke - 84
Washington State - 79
Northwestern - 77
Wake Forest - 73
TCU - 69
Vanderbilt - 68
Baylor - 66
Syracuse - 64
Indiana - 62
source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArFVbThT6eb5dHNFUmEyc19DTDJEc25BcVRwOWQzWWc#gid=0 or https://twitter.com/ArtDirectorBYU/status/197162017482743809
SEC 14
PAC-12 12
Big-10 14
Big-12 10
ACC 14
---------
64
On the football field, the SEC is the clear champion, in terms of on-field performance and attendance. The ACC is the laggard of the Big-5. (Though it is pretty good at basketball.) Looking at football attendance as a barometer for school programs, there is a clear separation of the "big-5" conferences and the "little-5".
The top 50 major teams are all independents or in major conferences. The bottom 35 teams are all in "minor" conferences. The Big-East was always a borderline AQ conference in the BCS. With all the poaching that has been going on, it is now very clearly in the "lower tier".
Are there many big-5 conference teams that shouldn't be there? There are not many teams that are in big conferences, yet are not in the top 64 in attendance. Duke, Northwestern and Vanderbilt are all the "academic" powers in their conferences and are located in major media markets. Duke also has a pretty impressive basketball record TCU's attendance numbers are an aberration due to stadium construction. The most recent attendance would put them closer to the 50s. (They are also sitting in the #5 media market.)
This leaves Washington State, Wake Forest, Baylor and Syracuse as the outliers. Baylor and Syracuse are "right on the border" of being top 64. Baylor also has Texas politics to thank for its position in the Big-12. They both have pretty good basketball programs. This gets us down to just Wake Forest and Washington State as "questionable". Both have had a pretty ugly recent history in football. However, they both have been long term members of their conferences and have well established rivalries.
What changes would you make? Notre Dame and BYU are the two big outliers in the "have nots". Notre Dame already has a non-football membership with the ACC and an in to the "big bowls". (They also have a current "BCS automatic inclusion" clause, but they didn't need to use it due to being first in the standings.) Notre Dame's attendance also exceeds that of all ACC schools. BYU is trickier. The Pac-12 would be a logical place, geographically and attendance-wise, but there are some politics involved. A Big-12 partnership may also make sense.
Beyond the independents, there are no "slam-dunk" options. South Florida is #52. However, it tends to draw a local Tampa audience. Florida State (ACC) and Florida (SEC) both draw from the entire state. Low-caliber academics would exclude the Big-10 or Pac-12. It could be an option if the Big-12 decided to make a run for Florida. However, the quality of the overall sports program lags behind other schools.
East Carolina is in a somewhat similar situation. Geographically, they would fit in the ACC. However, the conference is already loaded with North Carolina schools. East Carolina would lag behind many in academics and non-football sports. SEC lacks schools in North Carolina. However, East Carolina could probably not compete well with the SEC schools. Another Big-12 option?
Connecticut seems like an ideal expansion target. They are in an untapped market (and they could probably claim part of the New York City market also.) Basketball is excellent and football has spurts of quality. Academics are also decent (but lack of AAU membership would turn off the Big-10) AAC would be a logical place to go. However, you get the impression that the AAC is waiting for somebody to get poached before grabbing UConn.
At #61, Central Florida has the same problems as South Florida. At least Orlando doesn't have a pro football team. Hawaii at #63 is in Hawaii. Its a nice vacation, but it is a long way out there. Academics would also be an issue. After that you get Air Force, Fresno State, Navy, UTEP and Boise. Perhaps the national audience of the service academies would appeal to a conference. (The ACC could look at Navy to replace the Maryland market.) Fresno is an academic lightweight in California's central valley. The Pac-12 wouldn't dare go near, but maybe the Big-12 trying to break in to California? (Though of late, #76 San Diego State is out-drawing.) UTEP is in El Paso, which is pretty much the middle of nowhere. Boise has had a lot of football success and is in a growing city.
"Non-Big" Outliers
Notre Dame - 15th in Attendance
BYU - 27th in Attendance
South Florida - 52
East Carolina - 55
UConn - 60
Central Florida - 61
Hawaii - 63
Air Force - 65
Fresno State - 67
Navy - 70
UTEP - 71
Boise - 72
Cinncinnati - 74
Army - 75
San Diego State - 76
Southern Miss - 78
Memphis - 80
Houston - 89
Marshall - 82
New Mexico - 83
"Big Conference" Outliers
Duke - 84
Washington State - 79
Northwestern - 77
Wake Forest - 73
TCU - 69
Vanderbilt - 68
Baylor - 66
Syracuse - 64
Indiana - 62
source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArFVbThT6eb5dHNFUmEyc19DTDJEc25BcVRwOWQzWWc#gid=0 or https://twitter.com/ArtDirectorBYU/status/197162017482743809
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)
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Boise State to the SEC
Today, Texas A&M was officially welcomed as a 13th member of the SEC. Now they just need to add Boise to get to 14.
The current "future" membership of the top 7 football conferences:
Big East: 7 (- Pitt, Syracuse, + TCU)
Big 12: 9 (- Texas A&M)
ACC: 14 (+ Pitt, Syracuse)
SEC: 13 (+ Texas A&M)
Mountain West: 10 (+Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada, - TCU)
Big 10: 12
Pac-12: 12
The odd numbers could be the most concern. The Big-12 is probably the least "in need" of expansion. After all, there was no real "loss" in television market with A&Ms departure. Prior to this season, the schools were all scheduling 4 non-conference games, so it would just be a switch back to there. The Big-12 also has lawsuit-happy Baylor. Would a team really want to risk being stuck there based on the whims of Baylor? Even worse, with the conference going through two consecutive seasons on the brink of extinction, would it be worth the risk to join?
The Big East, however, could be desperate. Seven teams does not seem like a conference. With Connecticut, Rutgers and West Virginia looking for the exit door, TCU could easily get cold feet. (How would that feel to finally get to an AQ conference, only to have the conference yanked from under them?) They need to make some bold expansion moves fast. Perhaps the ACC should just invite some combination of the three and put the Big East out of its misery. TCU could then find its way back to the MWC or perhaps the Big-12.
Thirteen is an unlucky number, so the SEC needs to act quickly to add another team. How about Boise State? The constant knock on BSU is that they can win a big game, but couldn't make it in the weekly grind of the SEC. Why not give them a chance to prove it? They are a name brand with a good following. They are located nowhere near the southeast, have a smaller stadium and smaller reputation than any of the SEC teams, but would make for some interesting football games.
Even better yet, they could do something similar to international soccer and have some spots reserved for "top programs" from outside the SEC. If they win, they stay in the conference. If they lose, they are "relegated" back to their old conference. For now, they could grab Boise, along with a couple other "top" teams. (say some combination of East Carolina, Houston, Central Florida, BYU and Navy). They finish in the top half of the conference, they stay. They finish in the bottom half, they are gone. During this time, they "remain" a member of their old conference in other sports, and share some of their "bounty" with the home conference. If they enjoy a long period of SEC success, they may get invited to stay. Otherwise, they simply get rotated out.
This scenario can be a win-win for everyone. The SEC gets the quality opponents with extended media markets. It also reduces the chance of great teams bolting for competitive conferences. The mid-major conferences get the showcase their top teams. These teams get the access they have been craving. (They can win the SEC and become national champions with their work on the field.) The increased interest should produce a cash cow. The rolling nature of the agreement provides greater access and money for many schools without harming the take of the "established powers".
While the farm system may be a great idea, there are probably plenty of other realignment moves we will see first. Which conference will be the next one to act? If the Big East does not pull something quickly, it will be in danger of extinction. Will some of the conference USA teams by willing to "move up". (Maybe it wasn't such a good thing to boot Temple.) Or perhaps the Big East will decide it is not worth it and throw in the towel on football. It can return to a mostly religious school basketball league (similar to the WCC out west.) Connecticut and Rutgers will with the ACC, WVU the SEC, with the others knocking on the door of Conference USA for a chance back in. The BCS bid can float in the ether, giving another at-large bid. Or, better yet, it can become a "floating" bid, guaranteed to the top-ranked conference champion or independent, thereby ameliorating BCS critics, while still keeping the big-money open.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
College Football Conference Rankings
Conference Rankings using "similar team" methodology:
1. Big 10
2. WAC
3. Mountain West
4. Pac 10
5. ACC
6. Big East
7. SEC
8. big 12
9. Conference USA
9. MAC
11. Sun Belt
Rankings are computed by comparing the results of teams against "similar teams" from other conferences. Games against independent FBS are not included, while only loses to FCS teams are included. A good win is a victory over a team with an equal or better record in conference play. A bad loss is a loss to a team with an equal or worse record in conference play. Loses to FCS teams also count as bad loses. (Of course, comparing this seasons records would be better, but we don't know them yet.)
This helps to exclude "body bag" games where a conference champion blows out the cellar-dweller from another conference. A game such as Alabama's victory over San Jose State really tells us nothing about the quality of the two conferences. After all, the WAC teams had no trouble disposing of San Jose State, while Alabama had no trouble disposing with the rest of the SEC.
The games that are included are ones such as Michigan State's victory over Middle Tennessee. Michigan State finished in the middle of the Big-10, while MTSU was at the top of the Sun Belt. This is a better indicator of the overall strength of one conference versus others.
The MAC, Sun Belt and Conference-USA are clearly the "lower conferences". None have quality wins over non-conference foes, while many have ugly loses to teams from other conferences with worse records.
The Big East is slightly above these, with Syracuse's victory over a similar Akron team from the MAC.
The ACC does not have any directly comparable games - mainly due to a schedule full of FCS games. However, they did lose the two games to teams within a game of their teams. Similarly, the Pac-10 didn't win or lose any games against similarly ranked teams. The closest was the loss to by UCLA to Kansas State.
The Big 12 and SEC have some wins over the "lower 3" conferences. However, they both have ugly loses to FCS teams.
The only unblemished conferences are the Big-10, WAC and Mountain West. All three have quality victories over Big East teams. The Big-10 also has sunbelt and MAC victories.
Big-12
Bad Loss: FCS: Kansas lost to FCS North Dakota State
Good Wins: CUSA: Texas Tech (5-3 in conference last year) over SMU (6-2 in conference)
MAC: Iowa State (3-5) over Northern Illinois (5-3)
SEC
Bad Loss: FCS: Mississippi lost to FCS Jacksonville State
Best wins: Sun Belt: Georgia over Louisiana Lafayette (both had 4-4 conference records)
Sun Belt: Auburn over Arkansas State (both had 3-5 conference records)
CUSA: South Carolina (3-5) over Southern Miss (5-3)
Big East:
Bad Losses: WAC: Cincinnati (7-0) to Fresno (6-2)
MWC: Pittsburgh (5-2) to Utah (6-2)
B10: Michigan over Connectiut
Best Wins: MAC: Syracuse (1-6) over Akron (2-6)
Big 10:
Best Wins:
Sun Belt: Minnesota (3-5) over Middle Tennessee (7-1)
MAC: Michigan State (4-4) over Western Michigan (4-4)
Big East: Michigan (3-5) over Connecticut (3-4)
No bad loses
Pac 10:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (Kansas St over UCLA is closest)
ACC:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (LSU over North Carolina and Boise over Virginia Tech are the closest)
Mountain West
Wins: Big East: Utah (6-2) over Pittsburgh (5-2)
loses: none
WAC:
wins: Big East: Fresno State (6-2) over Cincinnati (7-0)
loses: none
Sun Belt:
Bad Loses: B10: Middle Tennessee (7-1) to Minnesota (3-5)
SEC: Louisiana Lafayette (4-4) to Georgia (4-4)
SEC: Arkansas State (3-5) to Auburn (3-5)
Good Wins : none
Conference USA:
Bad Loses: SEC: Southern Miss (5-3) to South Carolina (3-5)
B12: SMU (6-2) to Texas Tech (5-3)
Mid American
Bad Loses: B12: Northern Illinois (5-3) to Iowa State (3-5)
BE: Akron (2-6) to Syracuse (1-6)
1. Big 10
2. WAC
3. Mountain West
4. Pac 10
5. ACC
6. Big East
7. SEC
8. big 12
9. Conference USA
9. MAC
11. Sun Belt
Rankings are computed by comparing the results of teams against "similar teams" from other conferences. Games against independent FBS are not included, while only loses to FCS teams are included. A good win is a victory over a team with an equal or better record in conference play. A bad loss is a loss to a team with an equal or worse record in conference play. Loses to FCS teams also count as bad loses. (Of course, comparing this seasons records would be better, but we don't know them yet.)
This helps to exclude "body bag" games where a conference champion blows out the cellar-dweller from another conference. A game such as Alabama's victory over San Jose State really tells us nothing about the quality of the two conferences. After all, the WAC teams had no trouble disposing of San Jose State, while Alabama had no trouble disposing with the rest of the SEC.
The games that are included are ones such as Michigan State's victory over Middle Tennessee. Michigan State finished in the middle of the Big-10, while MTSU was at the top of the Sun Belt. This is a better indicator of the overall strength of one conference versus others.
The MAC, Sun Belt and Conference-USA are clearly the "lower conferences". None have quality wins over non-conference foes, while many have ugly loses to teams from other conferences with worse records.
The Big East is slightly above these, with Syracuse's victory over a similar Akron team from the MAC.
The ACC does not have any directly comparable games - mainly due to a schedule full of FCS games. However, they did lose the two games to teams within a game of their teams. Similarly, the Pac-10 didn't win or lose any games against similarly ranked teams. The closest was the loss to by UCLA to Kansas State.
The Big 12 and SEC have some wins over the "lower 3" conferences. However, they both have ugly loses to FCS teams.
The only unblemished conferences are the Big-10, WAC and Mountain West. All three have quality victories over Big East teams. The Big-10 also has sunbelt and MAC victories.
Big-12
Bad Loss: FCS: Kansas lost to FCS North Dakota State
Good Wins: CUSA: Texas Tech (5-3 in conference last year) over SMU (6-2 in conference)
MAC: Iowa State (3-5) over Northern Illinois (5-3)
SEC
Bad Loss: FCS: Mississippi lost to FCS Jacksonville State
Best wins: Sun Belt: Georgia over Louisiana Lafayette (both had 4-4 conference records)
Sun Belt: Auburn over Arkansas State (both had 3-5 conference records)
CUSA: South Carolina (3-5) over Southern Miss (5-3)
Big East:
Bad Losses: WAC: Cincinnati (7-0) to Fresno (6-2)
MWC: Pittsburgh (5-2) to Utah (6-2)
B10: Michigan over Connectiut
Best Wins: MAC: Syracuse (1-6) over Akron (2-6)
Big 10:
Best Wins:
Sun Belt: Minnesota (3-5) over Middle Tennessee (7-1)
MAC: Michigan State (4-4) over Western Michigan (4-4)
Big East: Michigan (3-5) over Connecticut (3-4)
No bad loses
Pac 10:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (Kansas St over UCLA is closest)
ACC:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (LSU over North Carolina and Boise over Virginia Tech are the closest)
Mountain West
Wins: Big East: Utah (6-2) over Pittsburgh (5-2)
loses: none
WAC:
wins: Big East: Fresno State (6-2) over Cincinnati (7-0)
loses: none
Sun Belt:
Bad Loses: B10: Middle Tennessee (7-1) to Minnesota (3-5)
SEC: Louisiana Lafayette (4-4) to Georgia (4-4)
SEC: Arkansas State (3-5) to Auburn (3-5)
Good Wins : none
Conference USA:
Bad Loses: SEC: Southern Miss (5-3) to South Carolina (3-5)
B12: SMU (6-2) to Texas Tech (5-3)
Mid American
Bad Loses: B12: Northern Illinois (5-3) to Iowa State (3-5)
BE: Akron (2-6) to Syracuse (1-6)
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Jeremiah Masoli
Jeremiah Masoli decides he wants to go to Mississippi, and presto he is admitted to the Park and Recreation graduate program and ready to practice with the football team.
(Interesting: olemiss.com has a prominent like to University of Alabama... Hmmm...)
So what does it take to actually get in to that graduate program? Plenty of programs don't require a GRE and have late application deadlines. (Though perhaps he had been intending to go and had already taken any tests and applied.) Park and Rec does not exactly sound like an academically intensive program, so it is probably not a stretch that he go in.
From the website it shows an application deadline of April 1. Ok. Very likely he missed that one. However, it has "roling" in parens, so that gives them the slack to say "sure you can get in now." The Park and Recreation Management - Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management / School of Applied Sciences requirements doesn't provide anything other than requirements, while the department-wide Graduate Handbook mentions that the graduate office has a March 31 deadline and "recommends" a certain grade point average and GRE scores. It also has a mechanism for "provisional admission" for those that don't meet the requirements.
Did Masoli get special treatment in being admitted to the program? Probably. Would a non-football player in equal circumstances also have received similar treatment? Fairly likely also. Masters programs are the "bread and butter" of department revenue. An incremental student that is willing to come in and pay his tuition can help with the departments bottom line, while only causing minimal use of resources. With Masoli playing football, his use of department resources will probably be even less than the average student. From his acounts, he was a pretty smart guy who was even recruited by Harvard before his first run-in with the law. Park and Rec also does not tend to strike one as the most academically competitive of programs. It is not a stretch to think that he may rank among the "more qualified" of applicants. (However, you have to think the only reason he is in the program is because Oregon did not have a similar program.)
This brings up the NCAA rule. Is it fair that a player that graduates can immediately play at another graduate school just because his school doesn't offer a degree? Absolutely. However, it would be even more fair to allow players to go to another school that offers any degree. Just because a school offers a specific degree does not mean it is the one you are interested in. There can be a significant variation in focus, quality and instruction among programs with the same title. Athletes should be free to compete immediately (providing they have eligibility) regardless of where they go or what they study. Sure, it could be abused, but this is the type of abuse the NCAA should want to see. "Schools experience a rash of players graduating early and transferring to other schools." Isn't getting a degree supposed to be the primary focus of the programs after all? This should be rewarded. The NCAA lets players transfer freely if the football program goes under probation. Resuming athletic endeavors because the academic program no longer fits their needs is only fair.
Now on tot he curious case of Masoli. Was Oregon right in dropping him from the team? Absolutely. He may have had a couple cases of being in the "wrong place at the wrong time." Perhaps once would have been forgivable. However, lying about it was perhaps a greater crime. Once he admits to lying, the coach can no longer trust him, and has no choice but to let events speak for themselves. When he was caught with the marijuana, Oregon really had no choice to boot him. He could have claimed some Beaver fans planted it, but nobody would believe him due to his untrustworthiness. The Pac-10 is not the SEC. They actually expect their players to obey the law. If he truly was a good guy that just happened to be running with a bad crowd, then getting booted should be a benefit. It would allow him to go elsewhere and find better friends, thus helping to show his innocence.
The typical player in his situation would probably have dropped out of school and entered the NFL supplementary draft. Masoli, however, finished his degree. Sociology is a real degree, not a tough one like engineering, though not a "fake" one like PE. That he was willing to graduate shows that he is actually somewhat serious in his academic pursuits. You could probably count on one finger the number of players that are booted from a team and eligible to transfer because they graduated. Mississippi did the right thing in letting him walk on to the team. He proved he was able to get things done even in adversity. He had no more chance at Oregon, but showed enough resolution to continue elsewhere.
(Interesting: olemiss.com has a prominent like to University of Alabama... Hmmm...)
So what does it take to actually get in to that graduate program? Plenty of programs don't require a GRE and have late application deadlines. (Though perhaps he had been intending to go and had already taken any tests and applied.) Park and Rec does not exactly sound like an academically intensive program, so it is probably not a stretch that he go in.
From the website it shows an application deadline of April 1. Ok. Very likely he missed that one. However, it has "roling" in parens, so that gives them the slack to say "sure you can get in now." The Park and Recreation Management - Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management / School of Applied Sciences requirements doesn't provide anything other than requirements, while the department-wide Graduate Handbook mentions that the graduate office has a March 31 deadline and "recommends" a certain grade point average and GRE scores. It also has a mechanism for "provisional admission" for those that don't meet the requirements.
Did Masoli get special treatment in being admitted to the program? Probably. Would a non-football player in equal circumstances also have received similar treatment? Fairly likely also. Masters programs are the "bread and butter" of department revenue. An incremental student that is willing to come in and pay his tuition can help with the departments bottom line, while only causing minimal use of resources. With Masoli playing football, his use of department resources will probably be even less than the average student. From his acounts, he was a pretty smart guy who was even recruited by Harvard before his first run-in with the law. Park and Rec also does not tend to strike one as the most academically competitive of programs. It is not a stretch to think that he may rank among the "more qualified" of applicants. (However, you have to think the only reason he is in the program is because Oregon did not have a similar program.)
This brings up the NCAA rule. Is it fair that a player that graduates can immediately play at another graduate school just because his school doesn't offer a degree? Absolutely. However, it would be even more fair to allow players to go to another school that offers any degree. Just because a school offers a specific degree does not mean it is the one you are interested in. There can be a significant variation in focus, quality and instruction among programs with the same title. Athletes should be free to compete immediately (providing they have eligibility) regardless of where they go or what they study. Sure, it could be abused, but this is the type of abuse the NCAA should want to see. "Schools experience a rash of players graduating early and transferring to other schools." Isn't getting a degree supposed to be the primary focus of the programs after all? This should be rewarded. The NCAA lets players transfer freely if the football program goes under probation. Resuming athletic endeavors because the academic program no longer fits their needs is only fair.
Now on tot he curious case of Masoli. Was Oregon right in dropping him from the team? Absolutely. He may have had a couple cases of being in the "wrong place at the wrong time." Perhaps once would have been forgivable. However, lying about it was perhaps a greater crime. Once he admits to lying, the coach can no longer trust him, and has no choice but to let events speak for themselves. When he was caught with the marijuana, Oregon really had no choice to boot him. He could have claimed some Beaver fans planted it, but nobody would believe him due to his untrustworthiness. The Pac-10 is not the SEC. They actually expect their players to obey the law. If he truly was a good guy that just happened to be running with a bad crowd, then getting booted should be a benefit. It would allow him to go elsewhere and find better friends, thus helping to show his innocence.
The typical player in his situation would probably have dropped out of school and entered the NFL supplementary draft. Masoli, however, finished his degree. Sociology is a real degree, not a tough one like engineering, though not a "fake" one like PE. That he was willing to graduate shows that he is actually somewhat serious in his academic pursuits. You could probably count on one finger the number of players that are booted from a team and eligible to transfer because they graduated. Mississippi did the right thing in letting him walk on to the team. He proved he was able to get things done even in adversity. He had no more chance at Oregon, but showed enough resolution to continue elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)