Not bad deciphering what's going on wrt BCS: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=/bcsroad/1116 Um, about USC being a sure thing ... As if we needed any more evidence. The bizarre nature of the BCS Standings should be further exposed on Monday afternoon, when Ohio State will likely take over the No. 2 overall spot despite being ranked No. 4 in both polls of human voters. Every team ranked in the BCS top 10 was victorious Saturday, so there wasn't expected to be much shakeup in this week's standings. But as we've observed time and time again, these rankings don't operate like the traditional polls. Teams can (and often do) fall after a win. This week, it was USC and TCU who fell. Southern California's lead on Ohio State was almost a point and a half last week, but that evaporated because of the strength of OSU's weekend opponent (Purdue) compared with the weakness of USC's opponent (Arizona). The Buckeyes gained enough ground in the computer and schedule-strength elements of the BCS formula to more than offset the two-point advantage USC holds over them in average poll ranking. The biggest surprise came from The New York Times' computer, which unexpectedly dropped the once-beaten Trojans from third to fifth. Texas (9-2) is No. 3 in those ratings, and Florida (8-3) is No. 4. Fortunately for USC, it doesn't have any more games against teams as bad as Arizona. Unfortunately for the Trojans, Ohio State's final opponent (Michigan) is even stronger than Purdue. If the Buckeyes win that game, they will likely remain at No. 2 in the following week's BCS Standings. The Battle For No. 2 For several weeks now, I've been saying that USC is vulnerable to getting jumped by a team ranked third in both polls. But now it's possible they will be overtaken by Ohio State even if the Buckeyes stay fourth in both polls. OSU currently has an advantage of 0.96 on USC in schedule-strength points, which might not be too far from what the margin will be at the end of the season. I expect it would be about 0.6 at the very least. Many factors still need to sort themselves out, but this much is certain: A Michigan win on Saturday will greatly reduce the stress levels of fans in Southern California. The Buckeyes also have a lead of slightly more than a full point over the Trojans in computer average this week, which combined with schedule-strength numbers, enables them to offset the two-point deficit to USC in the polls. But if the poll deficit stays at two spots, Ohio State might need to increase its advantage in the computers to hold off USC at the end of the season. The Trojans' quality-win bonus for beating Washington State could improve from one-tenth to as much as four-tenths of a point if the Cougars finish 10-2, and right now, that would be enough to push USC back to No. 2 in the BCS. That, however, might be the best-case scenario for the Trojans. What if Washington beats WSU and leaves USC with no bonus points? And perhaps an even more frightening question for Southern California: What if Ohio State gains an even greater edge in the computers? That was a possibility I hadn't given much thought until seeing LSU move ahead of USC into third place in this week's BCS version of Kenneth Massey's ratings. (In fairness to Massey, it should be pointed out that his original version, which uses margin of victory, has USC at No. 2 in the nation.) If teams with two and three losses can jump USC in The New York Times, why couldn't LSU do it in a few computers? Frog Watching TCU also might have received a bad omen from computer movement Sunday. After beating 5-4 Cincinnati, the Horned Frogs fell five spots (from 3 to 8) in the BCS version of Jeff Sagarin's ratings and also dropped two spots (from 6 to 8) in Massey's ratings. Don't expect those to be the only systems to drop TCU this week, which means it's not likely the team will stay in the BCS top six. A win over 7-3 Southern Miss (Thursday on ESPN) would improve the Frogs' standing, but this recent fallout from a win over a 5-4 opponent can't help but make you wonder what will happen when Texas Christian plays 0-11 SMU in its season finale. The teams are bitter rivals, and the Mustangs would love nothing more than to ruin what could be the most exciting moment in the history of TCU athletics (a BCS berth). The ironic part is that they wouldn't do this by beating the Frogs on the field; SMU would instead defeat TCU in the computers by being such a weak opponent. Unless several more top teams lose a game by Dec. 6, the chances of a top-six BCS finish by TCU aren't looking good. BCS Standings Projections 1. Oklahoma 2. Ohio State 3. Southern California 4. LSU 5. Texas 6. Georgia 7. Tennessee 8. TCU 9. Michigan 10. Washington State Hail To The Victors Take heart, USC fans. Michigan isn't merely playing the role of BCS spoiler against your nemesis Buckeyes this Saturday. The Wolverines can clinch an outright Big Ten championship with a win and also keep alive their own slim hopes of playing for the national title. That's a lot to play for. A win over Ohio State should ultimately make Michigan the highest ranked of teams with two losses, meaning it would be able to reach No. 2 in the BCS if USC and LSU both were toppled in the final few weeks. And because the Trojans and Tigers will not play their final games until Dec. 6, the Wolverines would have a little longer to dream if they can knock off OSU. The only twice-beaten teams that appear to have a chance at edging out Michigan for the No. 2 spot are Georgia and Tennessee. In order for that to happen, one of these teams would need to reach the SEC title game and beat an 11-1 LSU. The difficult part for Tennessee will be winning the SEC East tiebreaker. More than likely, Georgia will have to lose to either Kentucky or Georgia Tech for the Volunteers to come out on top. Projecting The BCS Bowls Even though Oklahoma looks like a lock, the only team that is officially in the BCS mix right now is Florida State. The Seminoles captured the ACC crown Saturday by beating NC State and will play in one of the major bowls. This will be the fifth BCS appearance for the 'Noles in six opportunities -- the most of any team in the nation. But who and where will they play? Let's start at the top. This season's BCS championship game is the Nokia Sugar Bowl, which will match the teams that finish No. 1 and No. 2 in the final BCS Standings. For the sake of this projection, let's make the bold assumption that favored teams will win out, leaving Oklahoma and USC to square off for the national title. Michigan would be the Big Ten champion and head to the Rose Bowl. The FedEx Orange Bowl would then take its preference between the ACC and Big East champions. If Miami wins the Big East, it's almost a lock that the 'Canes would be the Orange's choice. If they don't, the decision is tough to predict. If the No. 1 team in the BCS is Oklahoma, then the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl would get the next choice. That game usually hosts the Big 12 champion, so it would have to replace Oklahoma. A once-beaten LSU would be the most logical option there, but Texas would also be considered for that spot as an at-large pick. The Longhorns would become even more likely if someone other than LSU wins the SEC. Because the Rose Bowl would have lost the No. 2 team in the BCS (Pac-10 champion USC), that game would get the next selection. There are a few possibilities here, and the choice will have a great impact on how the other bowls fill out. Tradition suggests that the Rose would like a Big Ten vs. Pac-10 matchup, which would make Washington State a candidate for an at-large spot if the Cougars are ranked in the BCS top 12. The Rose Bowl is also interested, however, in selling out its stadium and maximizing the national prestige of the game. These factors would indicate that Texas or the SEC champion would also be a viable option. If the Rose is comfortable that the Big Ten champ will bring enough fans and Washington State is 10-2, then the Cougars seem to be the most likely pick. Just don't write it in stone yet. After this stage, there will be one spot open in both the Fiesta and Orange. Those bowls, along with BCS representatives, would negotiate the final selections based on what would offer the greatest possible good to each game. For the sake of this projection once again, let's assume the Orange gets Miami, the Fiesta takes LSU, and the Rose chooses Washington State. In this scenario, Florida State would still be on the table along with the remaining at-large pick. If the Orange Bowl has no interest in an FSU-Miami rematch, then the Seminoles would likely be shipped to Tempe, and the Orange would use the at-large to take either Texas or Ohio State. If the Orange would welcome the Miami-FSU rematch as a game of both local and national interest, then Texas would likely be LSU's opponent in the Fiesta, and Ohio State would be left out of the BCS. As you can see, there are many factors at work -- some political, and some that are strictly contingent upon the results of the next few weekends. More answers will come Saturday, so check back here next week for another look at how things are falling into place. Brad Edwards is a researcher for ESPN. His Road to the BCS column appears every Sunday. Also, click here to send a question for possible use on ESPNEWS.
We're going to see some significant changes in the BCS soon. The two at-large bids won't save the system from anti-trust scrutiny this time. Personally, I think they should ditch the AP Poll and USA Today Coach's Poll in the rankings. They're based too heavily on reputation. I mean, how can the one-loss team with the 72nd toughest schedule really be ranked higher than the one-loss team with the 13th toughest schedule? For that matter, why is a two-loss Michigan team (with the 34th toughest schedule so far) rank a lofty 5 in the polls while the two-loss Miami Hurricanes with the 7th toughest schedule thus far ranks 13th in both polls?
Miami lost twice in November. I don't think there has ever been a team that lost twice that late in the season that got to play for the NC.
I don't care about them playing for the National Championship, I merely noting that the AP and Coaches' polls often rank teams on mere fancy with little or nothing to back it up. When a team lost should be irrelevant to the discussion of which team is better. But their overall strength of schedule should not be irrelevant. And yet, Michigan is ranked 5th in both polls with 2 losses and a worse schedule than 13th ranked, 2-loss Miami who has a significantly tougher schedule. I mean, honestly, what's going to keep TCU out of a BCS Bowl is the AP Poll and the Coaches' Poll, not the computerized rankings, not the strength of schedule. It's going to be the biases of the AP and USA Today voters who base their opinions and rankings on esssentially nothing. It's the same with LSU. There's no way they should be ranked 3rd in the AP and USA Today polls with their pitiful strength of schedule. But there they are. If they're a 3rd place team, then TCU (whose current strength of schedule is only marginally lower 72nd vs. 90th) should be higher. Take the bogus AP and USA Today polls out of the BCS equation, and you've got: 1. Oklahoma - .80 2. OSU - 3.52 3. USC - 5.71 4. Tennessee - 8.15 5. LSU - 9.21 6. Texas 9.35 7. TCU - 9.77 8. Georgia - 10.73 9. Miami (FL) - 11.45 10. Miami (OH) - 12.03 11. Washington State - 13.03 12. Florida - 13.16 13. Michigan - 14.73 14. Purdue - 19.10 15. Mississippi - 19.11 So the fact that Michigan is overrated by the AP and USA Today polls, that helps them gain four spots in the BCS (and though LSU's decline is not as large, it did go down one spot). Nothing as arbitrary as these polls should be responsible for that much difference in the BCS rankings.
The polls are flawed Coaches Poll - How many coaches actually get to watch other teams they don't play. All they get to see is what ESPN shows them. Heck most don't even vote they give the ballots to the GAs. Media Poll - So many of these guys are biased. The writers from both the NY Times and Philly Enquirer (Smith Character) has said they will note vote OSU higher due to Maurice Clarett and the way it was handled. Now I don't agree that computer polls are any better but the polls are very flawed with ignorance, ESPN hi-lites and biases.
paige, I see your point, but that is the way it has always been in college football. The later on in the season you lose, the worst off you will be. Plus Miami lost in BACK to BACK weeks in November - that makes a huge difference compared to a team that lost in early September and maybe again in early October. There is some bias but the polls vote on perceptions of teams as well. The perception right now is that Michigan is one of the better teams in the country and Miami is not (and they are right, at least about the Miami part).
I hate any team from Florida. I prey every year that Florida, Florida State and Miami lose at least once. I hate their attitude, I hate the way the National media sucks their a** until they prove they that they suck. If I could cut Florida off from the continental US and send the whole da** state back to Cuba during the college football season I would. None of this matters anyway because who ever plays OU is going down.
Gee, thanks for sharing, I think. However, if you read mrpaige's posts in this thread, you would not get the impression that the National media "sucks their ass", would you? Tell me, was the national media "sucking Kellen Winslow, Jr's ass"? What a joke and was it necessary to include that last sentence? So, if you feel this way, why go to the trouble of posting what you did? So, you can show us that you can type some "*" with letters? Yipee...
They aren't right about Michigan being the 5th best team in the country, not based on a system that eliminates human bias. The BCS is supposed to be taking care of that - to match up the best two teams in the country. But how can they do that if a large part of the rankings are based on flawed polls? I don't care that the AP and USA Today polls are flawed in and of themselves, but since they are so flawed, they shouldn't be included in the process that gets us to the National Championship game or any of the BCS Bowl pairings, for that matter. The purpose of the BCS system was to eliminate those biases and perceptions and put together a system that figures the best in the country. Allowing teams to be overrated by the coaches and the writers messes with the system. Michigan is not a Top Five team. They aren't even a Top Ten team. Not right now based on the season so far. Allowing such subjective rankings to play such a large part in the BCS is going to be what kills the BCS or any such system. We need a system that eliminates those biases, perceptions and flat-out incorrect assumptions about how good a team is. These questions need to be sorted out on the field, not based on some writer's idea that losing late is worse than losing early. It's all about the season as a whole (heck, if it's all about winning late, then let's eliminate any games played before October. I mean, Texas is arguably playing the best football in the country of late. If losing early isn't all that important, they should get a shot at the NC. A loss from September 13th is what's keeping them out of contention, in all reality. Without that loss to Arkansas, they'd probably be at least 3rd in the BCS rankings.. and despite playing what many people consider to be some of the best football and being the highest ranked two-loss team in the BCS standings, the writers and coaches have them at 7th, two spots behind Michigan and two-loss Georgia who has one of those losses in November). The fact that some writers and some coaches think Michigan is playing good football now doesn't erase what they did before, and therefore their opinions should not be taken into account in the BCS standings. I mean, com'on. The writers and coaches say Michigan is the 5th best team in the country based on this entire season. The BCS rankings, taking out the polls, say Michigan is the 13th best team in the country. Clearly their bias is getting in the way of seeing what kind of team Michigan has been this season.
Also, I will say this: if all Michigan fans were like "Fattie", then I would want OSU to win, which is something that I thought I would NEVER say.
yeah, if anything, I'm saying that the national media (the AP voters anyway) are under-rating Miami based on their flawed notions that a late loss is worse than an early loss. To me, a loss is a loss is a loss and doesn't matter when in the season it comes. Of course, I did accidentally skip over Florida State when I was making my new Top 15, though I wish I hadn't since they, too, would be ahead of Michigan in a system set-up to rank the best teams in the country based on what they accomplish on the field (and against whom) throughout the season.
The BCS is supposed to be taking care of that - to match up the best two teams in the country. But how can they do that if a large part of the rankings are based on flawed polls? How are the polls any more flawed than the computers? The computers have Texas anywhere between 3 and 11. USC is anywhere between 2 and 5. LSU also ranges from 3 to 11. It's not like the computers don't have their own biases and flaws. But their overall strength of schedule should not be irrelevant. And yet, Michigan is ranked 5th in both polls with 2 losses and a worse schedule than 13th ranked, 2-loss Miami who has a significantly tougher schedule. How do you decide SOS? BCS has Miami's schedule at 7. Sagarin ranks Miami's schedule at 35. That's just as flawed as everything else. The polls also account for victory margin, which the computers do not. Ohio State suffers in the polls because it never dominates an opponent. A 9-1 team that wins by 20 pts a game is more impressive than one that wins by 3 pts a game. Your system doesn't account for that at all.
So, in other words, you were trolling. Let me know when you have a valid point you want to discuss. And also proof that it should not be taken while reading this site....
The New York Times computer ranking does include margin of victory. But hey, if we want to include that, I'm fine with it because it is something determined on the field rather than something determined by what some writer feels about Ohio State or what he sees on ESPN highlights, etc. As for how I would determine SOS, I don't care how it's done, just come up with a formula that does say something like "Well, Florida looks like a tough team, so they count more than Iowa, who doesn't look as good to me. Something based on opponent's winning percentage and opponent's opponent's winning percentage. You want to add a margin of victory to that calulation, too, I'm all for that.
As for how I would determine SOS, I don't care how it's done, just come up with a formula that does say something like "Well, Florida looks like a tough team, so they count more than Iowa, who doesn't look as good to me. That should obviously say "doesn't say something like..."
The New York Times computer ranking does include margin of victory. But hey, if we want to include that, I'm fine with it because it is something determined on the field rather than something determined by what some writer feels about Ohio State or what he sees on ESPN highlights, etc. Right now, the NYT computer ranking doesn't. After the 2001 season, the BCS people - for some ridiculous reason - banned victory margin from any of the computers. That's actually the only reason TCU is in it. In the Sagarin rankings, TCU is 8 in the BCS version, but 34 in the actual rankings. Sagarin almost bolted the BCS when they demanded the change because he felt the rankings weren't accurate, but caved in the end. I think over the course of a season, at least with top-10 teams, writers and coaches know as much about the teams to make a reasonable evaluation of who's best as a computer does. As for how I would determine SOS, I don't care how it's done, just come up with a formula that does say something like "Well, Florida looks like a tough team, so they count more than Iowa, who doesn't look as good to me. Fair enough, but whatever SOS formula you come up with will be as biased as the one in the heads of writers and coaches when they are evaluating teams. You compared LSU's schedule to TCU's as fairly close, but TCU has played no top-30 teams in the Sagarin rankings. LSU has played 2 top-10 and another top-30. If the SOS system tests the best teams you've played, it's very different from a SOS system that tests the average. Something based on opponent's winning percentage and opponent's opponent's winning percentage. That sounds like the BCS system, but that creates huge incentive for a conference to schedule a bunch of pansy teams from crap conferences. That makes your teams all go like 4-0 in non-conference games, which makes your conference schedule really good even though its not. Any computerized system can be manipulated, in my opinion. The people factor is to overcome things like that. I think its a fair mix right now, although margin of victory definitely needs to be re-added into the system.
It may be as close to fair as we're going to get, but I think the system needs to be continually tweaked to make sure it gets better and to take as much bias and subjectivity out as possible (and the polls are the most subjective part of the equation) I do guarantee we're going to see at least some changes in the BCS after this year, especially if OSU maintains its hold on the #2 spot (even though I think they deserve it) over USC. I agree that there will be changes. The BCS people are stupid - they do this everytime the matchup isn't what they wanted. The Miami-Florida State quirk got the bonus win pts in there. The Nebraska/Oregon thing got Margin of Victory eliminated. It's just dumb - they build a system that gets the results they wanted the PREVIOUS year. The funny thing is they want exactly what you don't. If the polls' #2 doesn't get in, that's when they make the changes. My contention is if they want the polls' #2 in there, just have the polls and take out the computers (stupid as well, in my opinion). But just the grousing from the non-BCS conferences (especially since the new Big East is so weak and yet maintains their BCS Bowl guarantee) will be enough to see some changes in who gets in and out, especially if TCU goes undefeated and ends up on the outside, even if they don't deserve to be in a BCS Bowl despite their undefeated season in most people's opinion. The funny thing is that if they do get in, I bet Margin of Victory is put back into the equation because that would have knocked TCU out.
tcu and osu are the two teams benefitting most from MOV no longer counting. i think it's ridiculous osu is now moving ahead of usc (and is most likely there for good with a win this week) since they never dominate anyone and just get by. i know a win is a win but we're talking in relative terms here since they've both only lost once and usc has had more dominating performances than osu and deserves to be there. i'm not really sure who usc has beaten besides wsu, but they win games convincingly (and even though auburn has proven average they dominated them) while osu barely scrapes by sdsu (which should practically be considered a loss). is there any calculation out there for where osu would be if MOV was considered? i think 4 in the human polls is where they belong in the bcs as well.
