One team is ranked #2 on the BCS. And they win their game this week 45-0. The third rank wins 37-3, and the fourth ranked team squeaks by 16-13 in OT. So logic dictates that the second and third rank in the BCS are secure.
Right? Wrong!
Ohio State, despite squeaking their way to victory after victory, managed to jump from #4 to #2 in the BCS, while USC (#3) and LSU (#4) each drop a rank, due to strength of schedule and computer ranks. The computer ranks equate a 77 point win over a top ten team with a 1 point win over the same team. TCU gets really shafted, dropping from a guaranteed spot in the BCS to #8, despite being undefeated.
An Ohio State-Oklahoma championship game will be more than brutal, unless Oklahoma’s entire game crumbles.
Yeah, between the potential investigation of the BCS under antitrust law (a really interesting case, which is only now starting to bubble up from under the surface) and the possibilty of USC finishing second in both polls yet out of the title game, the BCS stands to lose even more support.
I think because of monetary concerns, there ain’t gonna be a playoff system, ever. Not unless somebody can convince the NCAA, the big schools, and the bowl chairmen that there’s more money in it…then it would happen overnight. Working as I do in college fundraising (not at one of the “big schools,” though…we don’t even have a football team anymore), I know the big schools were never be fully convinced.
Just dump the BCS. Go back to the polls deciding #1 and #2, and just get all 117 I-A teams agreeing to stand by their decision on who should be in the title game. In the unlikely (hasn’t happened in years, IIRC) event that the polls differ on #2 and #3, then have a tiebreaker like strength of schedule. The computers should never be allowed to dictate anything to do with the title game. The New York Times computer somehow picked Texas and Florida ahead of USC this week.
Just a point for you to remember. The BCS was tweaked so that blowouts no longer count for anything. I believe that anything over a 21-point win is treated the same. So it’s not at all true from either end that a 77-point victory is equated to a one-point victory.
The funny part is that OSU won on a shanked kicked that they had nothing to do with. And a fluke fumble, when the QB barely got hit and just dropped the ball for a TD.
So OSU gets two lucky breaks and jumps in the standings and USC rolls like it was supposed to and gets bumped.
USC:
They beat Auburn who was ranked #6 in the first game. Auburn is now 6-5.
They beat Washington State who was ranked 6th at the time.
They lost to a very average 6-6 California team
Ohio State:
Beat #19 Washington (currently not ranked)
Beat #22 N.C. State (currently ranked 35th)
Beat Bowling Green while they were not ranked (currently 25th)
Beat #9 Iowa (currently 17th)
Beat #15 Michigan state (currently ranked 34th)
Beat #10 Purdue (currently 16th)
Lost to a good Wisconsin team currently ranked 33rd
They play this week at number 5 Michigan.
What do you value more, wins against good teams? or blowouts against bad to average teams?
I will take wins against good teams any day of the week.
Did you watch the game?
Ohio State won the game becuase they had IIRC 7 or 8 punts inside the 20 and 4 or 5 inside the 10. You say we got two lucky breaks. Purdue got two lucky breaks too. A poor snap on a field goal led it to being blocked and Gamble blatantly dropped a interception to end the game. Not to mention the blatant pass interference on Jenkins in the end zone.
We won the game becuase we won the turn over and field position battle. Luck had little to do with it.
Let ‘em play out. I can’t remember a single time when the two best teams weren’t matched under the BCS formula. (Oregon State in ‘01, ya’ shoulda’ beat Stanford and you’d have been in it, instead of bitchin’ about not bein’ in it.)
LSU (2), USC (2) and OSU (1) all have big games left. There could very well be some losses.
John Carter, you tangentally make an interesting point. Which is more deserving, assuming a similar strength of schedule: an 11-1 team whose one loss is to a bad team, or an 11-1 team, whose one loss is to a good team? You could say the first team shouldn’t have lost that game…but they beat all the good teams they played against, unlike the second team.
Another cat amongst the pigeons: in the unlikely event that LSU, USC, and OSU all lose a second game, and TCU finishes undefeated, how will the BCS explain their pairing in the Sugar Bowl during the anti-trust suit?
This used to be the case, but margin of victory was completely removed this year. A few people very knowledgable about the BCS are arguing to bring it back next year. Right now a 77 point win over Texas A&M and a 1 point win over Penn State are treated equally.
I’m kind of new to NCAA football (work all Sunday, so had to replace pro with college on Saturdays). Would someone explain to me what exactly would be required for LSU to move up to #2? Would USC and Ohio State absolutely have to lose? I know that Florida, the one team that’s beaten us, is moving up in ranking, is there any way that could help us assuming the aforementioned teams don’t lose?
And what’s going on with the NY Times poll? They have Miami of Ohio ranked ahead of LSU.
Well it’s not going to matter because Michigan will beat OSU in the big house.
And stop bitching about the BCS, It’s a hell of a lot better than what was before it. It would suck to have Michigan/OSU and USC in Stuck in the Rosebowl, while Oklahoma plays a third rate nobody in some bowl and wins easily. The system gets better with each upgrade, and gets closer to a true championship. It’s not perfect though. It does have problems with the computer ranking system(particularly with the New York Times crapola system which could be replaced by the dartboard method and get improved results)
The biggest change would be if they made no AP or UP polls until the the 6th week like the BCS. As it is now voters get stubborn about defending their early picks, and keep them even if they are shown to be crap. Then they need to pick 4 polls or so that have reasonable formulas, or make the computer section less important.
The really sad thing about this whole business is that TCU can never be ranked as high as #6. The big schools that they need to beat to get that rank will not schedule them in the future. TCU is too much of a risk. Same reason that big conference teams are shying away from the Bowling Greens, Marshalls, Louisvilles and Northern Illinois.
BCS rankings don’t show the Buckeyes as getting a Quality Win bonus even after beating all those ranked teams (Like it matters, the Wolverines will eat them for lunch). Does the bonus only count if it turns out your opponents didn’t suck (does Washington count as a quality win? They got beat at #19, but it turns out they’re bad)?
In any case, the strength of schedule really seems to be the back-breaking factor here. Should USC be punished because the Pac-10 is having a bad year overall? Will LSU jump both USC and OSU if it beats Ole Miss and wins the SEC title game based only on strength of schedule?
When it comes down to it, the poor TCU Horned Frogs can only beat who they have on their schedule. I’ll predict that they finish #7 in the BCS after they beat Southern Miss for the Conference-USA title and then slap SMU around like a coked-up pimp. (I say #7 because either LSU or Georgia will lose the SEC title game, effectively giving TCU one free bump)
Quality wins are calculated based on the current BCS standings. So if you beat a good team early (USC over Auburn) but then they end up sucking, no dice on a bonus. But if you beat a team and later they move back up in the rankings (LSU over UGA) then it can help you later
On a similar note, USC trounced a terrible 'Zona team this week, but since opponent strength (but not margin of victory) counts, their standing in some of the computer polls and in the strength of schedule columns was hurt.
And don’t forget all those conference title games as well.
Quack, why is it sad that TCU can never be ranked above #6? I mean, I am impressed that any team can run the table and remain undefeated in College Football, but do you really think that they are better than any of the teams above them in the rankings? or even some of the teams below them? Would you like to see a Oklahoma v TCU championship?
That’s a meaningless argument. The flaw is the assumption that they played any good teams to begin with, and that both teams played the same number of good teams.
I think most college teams play, at most, 2 good teams per year.
LSU will have to win its final two games, then win the SEC championship game, then hope OSU and USC folds.
I think that a SEC champion with one loss is a better ball team than a PAC-10 team with one loss. The Big 10 does not play a championship game, which sucks.
TCU plays in Conference USA, pretty much a league of mainly big time college football rejects. Their strength of schedule is not strong. Several years ago, Tulane won all their games (a sign of the end of the world), and was stuck playing in the Liberty Bowl, a second tier event in Memphis (where I am from). TCU will probably be stuck playing there. Too bad the Cotton Bowl is not BCS, that would have been a nice fit.
There IS more money in a playoff. More games = more money. The problem is twofold–dividing that money up, and making sure the small guys don’t get any of it.
Is this going to be the second year in a row that USC gets screwed? If there was a playoff last year, USC would have kicked the ass out of Miami or Ohio State.
My thoughts on the BCS are this: if the non-BCS teams can’t have a realistic shot at it, then they shouldn’t be part of 1-A football, and thus shouldn’t be on the schedules of the major conferences teams. They want the Troy States and Louisiana-Lafayettes for those early season tuneups, but not Northern Illinois or Bowling Green because (gasp), they might actually LOSE those games.
I think it would be great if those non-BCS schools refused to play the BCS schools, and then held a playoff for a championship instead of those weak-ass Motor City or New Orleans bowls.
IIRC, Ohio State “squeaked” its way to a national championship last year. No one gave them a chance against Michigan last year either, and win they won everyone was happy that they would supposedly get killed by Miami.
OSU wins with defense and special teams, not with luck. Last time I checked winning is what is important, not how you do it. I guess Doug Fluties Boston College Hail Mary victory should not count because it was luck, right?
If all three one loss teams win out, can you see the defending national champions not getting a shot to defend thier title? OSU’s lone loss of the season came at Wisconsin. The Badgers made one big play to win the game in the 4th quarter, so using the logic that they got lucky, OSU should be considered an undefeated team.
OSU knows how to win close games. They are going to play in many close games, just by the nature of how they approach the game. How can anyone still consider them lucky after they have proven themselves over and over again? Every team that OSU has beaten had chances to win the game, and they couldn’t do it. OSU makes big plays when they need to, and the don’t make many mistakes.
As usual, when you are on top everyone else is jealous.
