They've beaten better teams. Notre Dame has the advantage that they don't play any mid-major scrub teams like North Texas. They play almost all major conference mid-level teams (the equivalent of a bunch of Mizzou's or A&M's) and a few top-tier teams. They will always be ranked high early in the conference season because most teams have played 3 or 4 crappy non-conference games while they haven't. People need to stop looking only at loss to OSU. Our schedule has been terrible. Not only did we play these teams from weak-conferences (Rice, North Texas), but they suck in those weak conferences. The only winning team we've beaten is OU.
Exactly, teams like Notre Dame play a harder schedule and rarely get a week off like UT does on a consistant basis (Rice, North Texas, Baylor). Also, UT didnt just loose to OSU, they got completly dominated. The BCS does not want Texas very high up because they dont want them to have a chance at the national championship vs. OSU because they know it will not be a very entertaining game. They would rather have a team like USC or Michigan who would possibly make it an entertaining game.
Please, don't give me that about Notre Dame, they play the service acadamies (Army, Navy, Air Force) every single year and have for decades. They also don't have to jump the extra hoop of a conference championship game at the end of the year. The "BCS" is a formula, it doesn't "want" Texas to not be high up or anything. It's an inanimate object. What the people who run the BCS "want" is immaterial since they've pretty much slaved themselves to the formula
ND doesn't necessarily play a harder overall schedule - but they play a harder early season schedule, so their schedule (and thus computer rankings) will look better at this point. They just beat an 0-7 Stanford team, if I remember right. That's worse than Baylor. Umm, computers don't think that way. If anything, that would be the case if UT was ranked higher in the computers than the polls, but that's the exact opposite of what you're seeing.
Just a question: why do you want to include margin of victory? I'm a proponent of not looknig at margin of victory...
i dont think it should be a huge factor in the bcs average. but it should be included. you would assume that a team like ohio st would be more impressive by winning the way they have this year then all the close games that usc has been involved in. but like i said it shouldnt be a huge factor because then you will have teams running up scores on purpose like nebraska was consistantly doing during its national chapmpionships in the 90's
I don't recall Nebraska "running up the score"....they had an I-formation, option offense that no one could stop. What were they going to do when they got up big late? Start throwing the ball and stop the clock and score even more points? Down the ball? No...they just ran the ball to keep the clock moving. Second, the computer polls adopted a diminishing returns approach to MOV anyway, so beating a team by 30 or beating it by 50 made virtually no difference.
It UT beats Nebraska by 60, would you think that indicates that we're a better team than if we beat them by 2? I think it affects our perceptions of teams, and if two teams play an identical schedule and one beats all the opponents by 30 and the other beats them all by 3 points, I would like to see the one that was more dominant being ranked ahead of the other one. Taking out MOV doesn't allow that. The computers would look at them as equally good. I certainly think there's an argument against running up the score - but that can easily be solved by capping the margin at like 25 or 30 pts. But if your goal is to determine who the best teams in the country are, you need to give the computers as much data as you can to determine that. And score is a big part of that.
The old nebraska teams didn't do it but that one team with Eric Crouch in 2001 managed to lose its final game and get in because they ran up the score and the computer had them ranked higher than Oregon who wouldve at least given Miami a fight. Still, margin of victory should be in there, albiet on a limited scale. The fact that the computer cant' figure out that USC's wins have all been close and that they've just managed to scrape through is evidence enough.
They got in because Chris Simms and the longhorns self-destructed against Colorado just enough to keep Major from coming back and winning it (and he nearly did save for a terrible roughing the kicker call). Painful day. Doesn't matter though, the Hurricanes were the class of the country that year by far and would have dismantled the horns in all likelihood. Oregon's defense would have been consumed by the canes that year. Hell if anything a running-based attack like the Huskers that would play ball control was probably the only thing that might have worked - which it didn't.
Your probably right that was just i remember (long time ago as far as im concerned ) And i didnt realise that there were diminshing returns as the score went up. Thanks for the info
I think you guys discrediting USC have to look at their strength of schedule up to this point. USC's strength of schedule (toughest in the nation, IMO) has to be what is making them so well regarded by the computers -- their two non-conference opponents so far have been Arkansas and Nebraska, two teams ranked in the top 17 of the BCS and the computers really love Arkansas. Their other victories all have winning records except for one, who is 3-4.
Which game were you watching? The game UT outrushed and had more 1st downs in but had a couple of big TOs and missed coverages. OSU won fare and square--they were the better team, but it was no where near the total demolition Michigan put on ND. ND has a fairly easy schedule, easier than Texas. Both are 1-1 versus teams with a winning record. But Texas still has NU, A&M, Tech and OkState left with a winning record, plus the Big 12 championship game (5 games versus teams with a winning record). If they finish with 1 loss they will be ahead of ND, who only has 3 games left versus winning teams. Now if Texas loses out to a 1 loss SEC team I have no problem with that. Versus a 1 loss Cal or SC team, it is a toss up, but I suspect Texas will be higher in the polls and win out. Now that is just silly. Texas played Ohio State better than anyone else has so far and that was with their fresh QB in his 2nd ever game played and missing key players. I think the teams that would have a good chance to beat OSU include Michigan (Mich has been very impressive on both ends), Texas, the SEC powers (Tenn, UF, Aub, hard luck but very good LSU), Cal and possibly West Virgina. Unless SC drammatically improves I think they are fighting for #2 in their conference behind Cal, who like Texas has been oustanding since bungling an early game. Also, anyone who thinks the Moutaineers can't compete with anybody doesn't know them very well. They are 3rd in the nation in scoring and haven't even had to pass (yet I think they can). Just go back to the Sugar Bowl last year if you think it is easy to stop them, and this year's team is basically that one + another year of experience across the board. But they still have 3 quality opponenents left who are 17-1 between them, if WV runs the table they deserve a shot at the title over any 1 loss team. They would be underdogs versus OSU or Mich, but they could take them on a good day.
I am not discrediting SC's computer rankings. Under the rules (not account for MOV) it is what it is. But as Sagarin says, by removing MOV the computer polls don't work as well in predicting who is the better team, which is their whole point. But in watching SC quite a lot I can tell you they haven't been one of the elite teams this year. Heck I wouldn't favor them over a 2 loss LSU on a nuetral field in additition to another 6-7-8 undefeated or 1 loss teams (But then again I think LSU could beat anyone else and just go the tail end of breaks on the road against two other excellent teams). Further, home or not, I wouldn't pick SC over Cal or ND. I am real sure they will lose 1 game before the season, maybe twice. They have been a little lucky to be 6-0 on the 1st half of their schedule, and that is the easier part. Lots of credit to them to voluntarily place Ark, ND and NU on their schedule--I can't think of another power that does this for non-conference foes. If they run the table, even if they keep squeaking by, they deserve the #1 computer rankings,-again given the rules for them.
I for one have been discrediting SC because they are not as good as the other top teams. Other than the first game, they do not dominate and have had scares against average teams.
I understand, and I do think it should play a very small part. I'm an OSU fan who went to UT; during Tressel's era, all the powder puff games they schedule, the stars (or even starters) usually only play 1 half (unless it's close) and then the second/third teams come in. The score doesn't reach anything obscene (usually). Under Mack Brown, though, the starters are in until, what, the :05 mark of the 4th quarter? Colt McCoy throwing 6 TDs on Baylor: impressive, but what's the point, exactly? Shouldn't you be using that time to possibly season some freshman or second/third stringers in case of injury? Simply looking at margin of victory can be a bit deceiving, IMO...
I'm not sure what schedule you're looking at, but ND has beaten 5-1 GaTech, 4-3 Penn State, and 5-2 Purdue. They lost to a 6-0 Michigan that could be as good as OSU, and beat a 3-4 Michigan State team. They haven't played anyone as bad as North Texas, Rice, or SHSU. I agree that their schedule weakens while ours strengthens, but it's not a weak schedule. They have two top-10 caliber opponents in Michigan and USC, and possible a third in GaTech.
