2008-09 BCS Discussion/Projections

[Cyclone792]

The stage is now set for the Ok/Tex rematch.

Zzzzz.

You know, I didn't think it was possible until I looked closely at the individual point totals and the computer rankings. But now that you mention it, I think the possibility is certainly there.

If Florida beats Alabama next weekend, then Alabama will be out. But the more I look at it, the more I'm not necessarily sure that a win by Florida will automatically put them in. They are lagging considerably in the computer rankings as follows:

1) Oklahoma
2) Texas
3) Alabama
4) Texas Tech
5) Utah
6) Florida

In fact, Texas has Florida beat in every individual computer ranking too.

Some things to think about:

1) If Oklahoma and Florida both win, would human voters jump Florida all the way to #1 ahead of Oklahoma? Florida would be looking for those valuable points.

2) How far would voters be willing to drop Texas to ensure Florida gets in? It's apparent that this week voters gave more points to Texas than they did last week. Would the opposite then happen next week with Texas being idle?

3) Florida needs a bunch of help in the computer rankings. Beating Alabama will obviously provide a massive boost, but would it be enough of a boost on its own footing? They're currently well behind Texas in the computer rankings.

4) Florida's strength of schedule in the computer rankings will obviously spike up, but outside of Alabama, they might not get any help at all. The rest of the SEC is finished. Florida's key non-conference wins were Florida State, Miami (FL), and Hawaii. Florida State and Miami (FL) are also done. Meanwhile Hawaii hosts UC. If UC wins, then Florida's win over Hawaii loses some luster in the computer polls.

5) Texas' strength of schedule likely isn't changing. They beat both Oklahoma and Missouri. The rest of the Big 12 is finished. Their best non-conference win was probably Rice, and Rice's season is finished. However, Rice did lose to Tulsa, and Tulsa is playing East Carolina next week for the Conference USA championship. A win by Tulsa and Rice probably gets a slight boost in the computer rankings, which would then give Texas a very slight boost in their schedule. Additionally, a Cincinnati victory over Hawaii boosts Cincinnati up slightly in the computer polls, which then gives a bit of help to Oklahoma and the rest of the Big 12.

Now obviously we can stretch out the "Team A played Team B who played Team C who played Team D" wherever we want, and we're talking about fractions of points in the computer rankings (if that), but I have to think those fractions do exist. And since the computer polls are where Florida needs to make the biggest gains, those strength of schedule idiosynchroses become slightly relevant.

This situation would also ripple throughout the rest of the BCS too rather than just shuffling up the national title game and the other BCS bowls. If Oklahoma and Texas play in the national title game, then that opens up the door for Texas Tech to grab an at-large spot. And I'd have to think if Texas Tech is available as an at-large, then they're BCS bound over Ohio State and Boise State.

Just something to chew on ...

[Highlifeman21]

So is Oklahoma playing Mizzou for the Big 12 Champ?

If so, I immediately became one of the biggest Mizzou fans around, hoping they win to keep Oklahoma as far from the NC as possible.

[Marc D]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think every BCS bowl has sold out since the system began.

These games make tons of money for both the BCS and the cities regardless of who plays. Does a football factory school like Oklahoma or Ohio State bring a huge contingent of fans? Surely.

But the game will sell out regardless of who plays, fans will travel regardless of who plays, and a lot of money will be made regardless of who plays. Unless the goal is purely profit maximization (in which case the entire system is just a sham), the BCS should be seeded by what happens on the field instead of what happens with boosters.

Now, your garden variety bowls...that's a different story entirely.

I don't know the exact data either, I would love to see it but I recall hearing a lot of groaning from BCS Bowl officials who have gotten stuck with some non traveling teams in the past or clunker matchups that no one was really interested in.

As far as the rest of it goes, like any business, it is solely about profit maximization other than the NC game. They are not seeding some type of playoff, they are trying to promote the most attractive game they can to make as much money as they can.

If you are seeding a playoff then by all means put Boise in over OSU, if you have to answer to the local Chamber of Commerce you'd be crazy to do so.

[Marc D]

So is Oklahoma playing Mizzou for the Big 12 Champ?

If so, I immediately became one of the biggest Mizzou fans around, hoping they win to keep Oklahoma as far from the NC as possible.

Yes, its a done deal. OU vs Mizzou based on the B12 using BCS rankings as the tie breaker.

[WMR]

I don't know the exact data either, I would love to see it but I recall hearing a lot of groaning from BCS Bowl officials who have gotten stuck with some non traveling teams in the past or clunker matchups that no one was really interested in.

As far as the rest of it goes, like any business, it is solely about profit maximization other than the NC game. They are not seeding some type of playoff, they are trying to promote the most attractive game they can to make as much money as they can.

If you are seeding a playoff then by all means put Boise in over OSU, if you have to answer to the local Chamber of Commerce you'd be crazy to do so.

The non-traveling team thing I can give you...

"Clunker matchups," however ... have there been any bigger "clunker matchups" in recent seasons than OSU vs. the SEC?

[MWM]

I don't profess to be a college football expert, and I'll admit I only watched Penn State play 3 or 4 times this year. It's no secret I'm not a fan of the Big 10's style of play, and I usually don't watch if there's an equally compelling game from another conference on. So I'm certain there's a fair amount of bias there.

I'm not a big fan of the Big Ten style of play, either. I've been shouting that, even here, for quite some time now. I really believe they have the talent to match any other conference (the NFL draft should tell you that), but too many of the programs are stuck in the past century. It's irritating. I'm not as much a fan of a conference as a team. It's not been until on here the past few years that's I've ever really talked much about the conference. I grew up in Ohio and started watching them in 1984 when I was a kid and have been watching ever since. I don't care all that much about the conference like others do about their conference. But the factor no one ever wants to talk about that I never bring up because it's just not worth it with some of the folks here is the weather factor. When's the last time a southern team had to come up north in November or early December and have to play in Michigan or Ohio or Wisconsin. It never happens, so teams are built differently. I think this is overblown by some of the B10 coaches, but I think that's part of the reason you see so many vanilla offenses. I think they need to step into the 21st Century and stop with the 3 yards and a cloud of dust stuff.

But not liking style and not giving them credit is a different story. Outside of Ohio State, th Big Ten has fared pretty well against SEC teams in bowls.

[quote]When I did watch Penn State play, what I saw was a fairly vanilla offense that was punctuated by the occasional big play. I didn't see a lot of explosiveness from anyone on the offense, and I certainly didn't see a lot of creative scheming. That was just my impressions of them.[/quote[

That's not the offense I saw early in the year. I couldn' believe it was Penn State actually running such an offense. I was shocked. They beat Oregon State 45-14, Syracuse 55-13 (yes, I know they're a bad team, but it's still 55 points), Illinois 38-24, Wisconsin 48-7, MIchigan 46-17. Yes, I know these aren't great teams, but they're so bad that everybody's rolling in and putting up those kinds of points on them. They were playing aggressive and they looked like the real deal to me. They played scared against Ohio State and then just played bad against Iowa. That's two games. Aside from those two game, their offense looked pretty darn good.

Do they play well on both sides of the ball?

Well, there's not a ton of teams that do. No one plays defense in the Big 12. And very few teams play good defense in the SEC, with the top two teams being about the only ones.

Conference quality factors in there, but as one of many factors. I don't think anyone is saying that X team is better than Y team because X's conference is better than Y's. If they are saying that, their opinion doesn't really matter.

I think it has become one of the most important determining factors, unfortunately. I wish it weren't, but it is. USC and Penn State are being left out of the conversation for that reason.

Not for nothing, but Florida State was a Top-20 team as of last week and are still in the Top-25 in the latest BCS rankings. I'd say that qualifies as a quality road win, especially given their status as an in-state rival -- even if I do think that Florida State tends to get more "sentimental" votes than other programs that leads to them being ranked when they aren't really all that good.

Yeah, FSU is not a good football team. Talk about bad offense. Theirs is awful. They have no business in the top 25.

Texas's OOC schedule is weak, but my gosh -- look at the gauntlet they ran in the Big 12: vs. 1 Oklahoma, v. 11 Missouri, v. 6 Oklahoma State (all Ws) and then a last-second loss @ 7 Texas Tech. Same with Oklahoma, except add in TCU, Cincinnati and Kansas for them.

True. That's a tough stretch, but I don't think Oklahoma State and Missouri are as good as they're made out to be. Oklahoma State has been given all this credit, but they lost all three of the games to Texas, TTU, and Oklahoma. And they lost by 36 to texas Tech and 20 to Oklahoma. Mizzou is also a decent team, but they aren't good enough to warrant great accolades for beating them. I'm not saying they're pushovers, but the only teams in the Big 12 that play any defense at all are Texas and Oklahoma, kind of like the Big Ten and offense.

Penn State and USC both have quality OOC wins (Oregon State for Penn and Ohio State for USC), but both are at home vs. trans-continental opponents. Teams that travel cross-country to play a game, generally, don't play well and end up at a massive disadvantage. They're good wins, but you've gotta take both with a grain of salt, IMO.

Now I'm in compete disagreement with this. A grain of salt? I don't think so. Having out of conference wins like this is something very few teams have. I think they should weigh heavily in the discussion.

So who do you reward? The team that plays tough OOC opponents but plays in a dog conference? The team from the powerhouse conference that dominates but plays no one from the outside? Everything is fluid every year, and there's no way to weigh what should matter most in a given year.

See, you're proving my point here. It's "powerhouse" conferences versus "dog" conferences. Why don't we look at the teams. It' my belief that the difference in conferences isn't so great that it should be perceives with such a distinction.

This year, does the Big 12's plethora of top-flight teams offset the weak OOC schedule from some of their squads? Do we excuse a weak PAC 10 or weak Big 10 because it's outside of Penn State's or USC's control and look to their quality OOC wins?

I think the Big 12 is the toughest conference here, but I don't see the "plethora" you're talking about. I love watching Texas Tech play, but we saw what can happen when they play against a team that actually plays defense. Oklahoma completly shut them down. And they had to resort to a 4th quarter comeback to beat Baylor. I think they're deserving to be ranked where they are, but I question if they're capable of consistently playing with top tier teams. Maybe they can, but I'm not convinced. They'd have to outscore everyone.

I think this conversation highlights just how arbitrary and subjective this whole conversation is. You weigh what you see based on your pre-determined biases. I do the same. So does everyone else involved from the media to the fans to the coaches. It's just a moronic system.

[MWM]

No way will Oklahoma and Texas play in the national championship. If Florida beats Alabama, they will move up to #1 in every human poll. Just like we saw in 2006, voters will not allow a rematch. The winner of the SEC title game is in.

[Cyclone792]

No way will Oklahoma and Texas play in the national championship. If Florida beats Alabama, they will move up to #1 in every human poll. Just like we saw in 2006, voters will not allow a rematch. The winner of the SEC title game is in.

I'm 99 percent in agreement with you, though that's down from the 100 percent that I was before today. The only reason I believe that door has a slight crack in it is because it seemed apparent to me that many voters wanted Texas over Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game, but it still wasn't enough to offset the computer rankings. It was just telling that Texas picked up votes on Oklahoma in both polls despite the fact that Texas beat a lowly team at home while Oklahoma beat a very tough, ranked team on the road. That's going to have to flip-flop next week, with those voters who bumped Texas over Oklahoma reversing themselves.

It's one of those things that even if the voters try to bump Florida up, will they have enough of a push to offset the computer polls? I'm 99 percent sure they will, but not 100 percent now. The massive gap in the computer polls is what they have to fight, and even with Florida's solid win at Florida State yesterday, they didn't close the computer poll gap on Texas by a whole lot (Florida suffered some major SOS setbacks this weekend which hindered their computer poll rankings).

[MWM]

Personally, I don't care if we have two teams from the same conference playing for the national championship if they're the two most deserving teams. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but until their is a playoff, I think it's unfair to penalize what might be the second best team in the country because they happen to play in a conference with the best team.

[LoganBuck]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think every BCS bowl has sold out since the system began.

These games make tons of money for both the BCS and the cities regardless of who plays. Does a football factory school like Oklahoma or Ohio State bring a huge contingent of fans? Surely.

But the game will sell out regardless of who plays, fans will travel regardless of who plays, and a lot of money will be made regardless of who plays. Unless the goal is purely profit maximization (in which case the entire system is just a sham), the BCS should be seeded by what happens on the field instead of what happens with boosters.

Now, your garden variety bowls...that's a different story entirely.

These games are pushed by advertising dollars, and money spent by fan bases in the local communities. I know people involved in the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce. They are terrified that Utah may be coming, again. They have a lot of Mormons who are fans. Mormons don't drink alcohol. They don't spend money in nightclubs and bars. Alcohol is a high margin product in the restaurant business. They are terrified. They need the bump from the bowl game.

[dabvu2498]

What if Bama barely loses to Florida? Wouldnt they have as good an argument as any of the other 1 loss teams? I love it. All the disagreements and all the games havent even been played yet!

[guttle11]

Personally, I don't care if we have two teams from the same conference playing for the national championship if they're the two most deserving teams. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but until their is a playoff, I think it's unfair to penalize what might be the second best team in the country because they happen to play in a conference with the best team.

I'm the opposite. With only 2 teams getting a shot to be the champion, it's hard for me to say any team that didn't win its conference is more deserving than one that did. Nebraska playing Miami for the title despite not winning the Big 12 North was the biggest travesty of the BCS, IMO.

[guttle11]

These games are pushed by advertising dollars, and money spent by fan bases in the local communities. I know people involved in the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce. They are terrified that Utah may be coming, again. They have a lot of Mormons who are fans. Mormons don't drink alcohol. They don't spend money in nightclubs and bars. Alcohol is a high margin product in the restaurant business. They are terrified. They need the bump from the bowl game.

Yep. I saw somewhere (might have been here) that Ohio State had approximately 100,000 fans in Austin, Texas for a regular season game in 2006. That's mind-boggling. When the Bucks come to your town hotels, bars, restaurants, and tourist sites are banking.

[D-Man]

I fully anticipate that OU will lay another postseason egg next weekend, and then the BCS will be in a real bind.

P.S. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Big 12 shredded in the bowls. None of those teams have anything resembling a good defense.

[D-Man]

I fully anticipate that OU will lay another postseason egg next weekend, and then the BCS will be in a real bind.

P.S. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Big 12 shredded in the bowls. None of those teams have anything resembling a good defense.

P.P.S. Of the Big Four in the Big 12 South, I count two legitimate out-of-conference wins among the four of them. . . And Oklahoma has both of those wins (UC and TCU). This strikes me as a conference that has padded its stats and wins as a collective unit. Think Ohio State/Michigan, c. 2006.