Omnicent said:
–I am not going to repeat this long description of a very complicated program–
Now which is more complicated? The BCS or a program like the one you suggested?
Lowry Stiles…
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
However, lowrys -
If a team doesn’t win by the “expected” margin, it will fall in almost ALL of the polls. As an example, Penn State beat Arizona this weekend 41-7. It was almost 41-14 when Arizona almost scored a meaningless touchdown with a few minutes left to go. Now, the pollsters would look at a 41-14 score a lot differently, even though both touchdowns were in the final minutes. Even with averaging the polls in the BCS formula, it would still hurt the better team.
astorian -
Great point on the polls. And your post is the main reason I hate the coaches poll. Florida State and Penn State could suck, and they’d still be ranked fairly high, because everyone loves Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno. As I said before, what a crock.
lowrys, when did I say that, or propose a BCS system???
Falcon said:
[If a team doesn’t win by the “expected” margin, it will fall in almost ALL of the polls. As an example, Penn State beat Arizona this weekend 41-7. It was almost 41-14 when Arizona almost scored a meaningless touchdown with a few minutes left to go. Now, the pollsters would look at a 41-14 score a lot differently, even though both touchdowns were in the final minutes. Even with averaging the polls in the BCS formula, it would still hurt the better team.]
Even under the old system of AP and coaches polls only, a score difference like that didn’t make a difference. It would be an extremely rare occurance (and I can’t think of one at all) for a team to lose a spot because they won by 41-14 instead of 41-7.
Now I could defintely see a possibility of dropping if the score was 41-40 (but considering Arizona’s rank, PennSt wouldn’t drop at all even if they won 3-0.)
As a general rule of thumb… teams don’t drop due to poor performance. They are surpassed by better performers.
And let’s not kid ourselves… in the BCS, the only two spots that matter are #1 and #2, what happens at the #18 spot is insignificant.
Lowry Stiles…
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
lowrys -
Got to disagree with you. You said:
It’s happened. Penn State-Indiana, the year Penn State went 12-0. Which was…1995 or 1996, I think. They didn’t pound Indiana into the ground, and lost the #1 ranking. Nebraska got it, and kept it throughout the rest of the season. (And IIRC, that debacle was one of the main calls for a BCS system.)
And I do agree that the only spots that matter for the BCS are #1 and #2. However, as astorian pointed out, the #1 and #2 spots are heavily influenced by the preseason polls, which are a joke.
“You have to laugh at yourself, because you’d cry your eyes out if you didn’t.”
-Emily Saliers
Omniscient said:
[lowrys, when did I say that, or propose a BCS system???]
You misunderstood what I was talking about. I was commenting on your system that you described. I didn’t feel like quoting the whole thing. I just asked… Which is more complicated… the system you proposed, or the BCS?
Lowry Stiles…
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
Falcon said:
[It’s happened. Penn State-Indiana, the year Penn State went 12-0. Which was…1995 or 1996, I think. They didn’t pound Indiana into the ground, and lost the #1 ranking. Nebraska got it, and kept it throughout the rest of the season. (And IIRC, that debacle was one of the main calls for a BCS system.) ]
I am guessing that would have to be 1995, as Florida won the NC in 96.
But lets examine the situation. PennSt didn’t “pound” Indiana (a decidedly poor team by anyone’s standards), yet Nebraska performs better, plus they were the defending National Champions, and if I recall… Nebraska’s most talented team was that year. I wouldn’t doubt that Nebraska deserved the top spot over PennSt.
Of course without knowing the full situation I couldn’t offer anymore than that. Hubzilla is the Nebraska expert… I expect him to chime in anytime now about the situation.
Lowry Stiles…
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
lowrys -
Agreed. (And it’ll be interesting to see Hubzilla’s take.) However, that was the year Penn State had Ki-Jana Carter and Kerry Collins. And my point was that by winning a game, they went down in the rankings? Nebraska has NEVER had a tough schedule. (Which is because they’re in the Big 12.) Personally, I would have loved to see the two teams meet each other. IMHO, Penn State would have won. (Of course, I have a slightly biased opinion…) 
And as a finall comment, I am so glad football’s back. Yet another reason I love fall…
lowrys,
The details of that season (1994, BTW) are quite sordid-allow me to explain. Penn State jumped to first place on the basis of having won some strong games (including beating Michigan in Ann Arbor). Penn State was leading Indiana by a comfortable margin early in the fourth quarter (I believe it was 21 points). Joe Paterno is a honorable coach (one of a very few in the game) and decided that he would not run up the score like some schools I could mention. As a result the second-team defense gave up two meaningless scores, the last of which was the final play of the game. This brought the score to a much slimmer margin (I think 7, but I’m not sure). The pollsters, most of whom had never seen one minute of the game, said, “Penn State only beat a bad team by only 7 points; they must not be that good” and dropped them to second, despite the fact that the average PSU scoring drive from that game lasted about 3 minutes and PSU could have easily scored again with their first-stringers. Nebraska, contrary to popular opinion, did not beat a good team that week, but they beat an average team by a lot.
While it is true that a single playoff game may not be truly indicative of the relative ranking of two teams, at least the “national championship” was decided on the field rather than in the minds of the pollsters. May I remind you that the NFL uses a single elimination system for its playoffs and no one complains.
Also, while the seedings for the 1-AA playoffs are determined by polls, at least all the top teams are represented and have a chance to win. You need to select the teams somehow, and no matter how you do it, some team is going to feel jilted for not having been selected. But with 8 teams instead of 2, your chances of having excluded the best team are much smaller.
TheDude
TheDude -
THANK YOU! I sort of remembered the whole deal with running up the score, but couldn’t remember the exact details. Thanks for posting them.
I recall the Penn State-Nebraska game. I won’t claim that Penn State played brilliantly (it wasn’t one of their stronger efforts), but they were leading 34-20 with a few seconds to go. In other words, the game was OVER. Penn State had the game in the bag. Indiana had played gamely, but they had ZERO chance to win. Regardles, since the Hoosiers knew they had time for exactly one play, they figured, “What the heck? Let’s throw a Hail Mary into the end zone.” That’s exactly what they did, and it worked. The Nittany Lions didn’t rush the quarterback or play tight defense, since the outcome of the game was no longer in doubt. Indiana scored a touchdown. Since there was no time on the clock, they figured, “Hey what the heck, let’s go for 2!” Again, since the game was over, and there was no way Indiana could win, Penn State pretty much let them score the 2. At that point, the gun sounded, at Penn State won 34-28.
To anyone who SAW the game, it was clear that Penn State had won handily. To people who only saw the score in the next days’ newspaper, it apepared that Penn State had barely escaped with their lives.
Now, I’ve always liked Penn State and I’ve always hated Nebraska… still, my HUNCH is that Nebraska was better that year. If I had a vote… I probably would have held my nose and voted for Nebraska. But why should a championship ever come down to anyone’s OPINION??? Who CARES which team I think is better? Who CARES which team the coaches or reporters think is better? A championship should be earned on the field. A playoff is the only way to go… but I’m 38, and not at all convinced a playoff will happen in my lifetime.
Maybe a playoff system wouldn’t be perfect, but it would HAVE to be better than letting sportswriters GUESS who the best team is!
I didn’t want to turn this into a fan’s debate, but Falcon asked for my take on the 1994 championship.
Hmm, what an intriguing debate. Actually, I was of the opinion that both teams should’ve shared. Paterno was a classy guy and I couldn’t have imagined a better guy to share it with. Would it have taken away from our Natl Championship? I doubt it, after all, no one in Nebraska thinks of 1997 as a Co-Champions. I bet it’s the same in Michigan.
Interestingly enough, NU’s coach, players, and fans wanted desperately to play Penn State in the bowl game. They thought it was unfair that we drew #3 Miami at their home stadium, while PSU had to get by Oregon. Ironically, we considered PSU on a neutral field an easier draw than Miami at home (before their downfall).
If I recall, PSU beat Indiana the same weekend that NU played Colorado. NU had an inexperienced QB (starter was out with blood clots) and took on favored #3 Colorado with Salaam, Kordell, and Westbrook (which had beaten Michigan). NU won 24-7, and would’ve jumped to #1 regardless of what the PSU-IU score was. Much like when Michigan jumped ahead of unbeaten NU in 97 after beating PSU.
As for Nebraska’s “easy schedule”, it should be noted that in 1995 #1 NU beat 4 teams that finished* in the top ten by an average of 49-18, including #2 Florida 62-24. In 1997, #1 NU beat more teams that ended up in the final rankings (5 vs 3) than Michigan’s supposedly tougher slate.
“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument” - William McAdoo
Falcon said:
[Agreed. (And it’ll be interesting to see Hubzilla’s take.) However, that was the year Penn State had Ki-Jana Carter and Kerry Collins. And my point was that by winning a game, they went down in the rankings?]
I did say it was rare, but I think Nebraska was an overwhelmingly better team than PennSt.
[Nebraska has NEVER had a tough schedule. (Which is because they’re in the Big 12.) Personally, I would have loved to see the two teams meet each other. IMHO, Penn State would have won. (Of course, I have a slightly biased opinion…)]
Now… as far as the Big10 being a tougher conference than the BigXII… weeeell that’s a matter of biased opinion too. 
Lowry Stiles…
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
lowrys,
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have to say that I think you are on crack when you say that Nebraska was an enormously more talented team than PSU. That team had one of the more incredible offenses in history that year and, while their defense was mediocre, it was good enough to win the big games. I think PSU-Nebraska that year would have been one of the all-time great college football match-ups and while I may be biased, I think Penn State would have pulled it out.
As to the question of whether it is tougher to play in the Big 10 or Big 12, it is a matter of opinion. But I might point out that there is no question that the Big10 has been stronger in the last three years. And the Big 10 is always a more physical league which causes weariness and injuries. Which is also why it is so difficult to win every game.
TheDude
TheDude wrote:
Penn State had a great offense, but never played anyone that finished in the AP top 10, while Nebraska played #3 Colorado and #6 Miami. So what “big games” are you talking about?
To put 1994 PSU’s 47 ppg in historical perspective, the 1995 Huskers averaged 49 ppg, the 1996 Florida Gators averaged 47 ppg, and the 1997 Huskers averaged 47. As shown below, the latter three teams played tougher schedules (based on ranked opponents, of course).
Based on what, may I ask? I think the polls would be the most objective measure I could think of. Let’s look how the conferences fared in the AP poll the past five years (according to my media guide):
Year: Big 10, Big 8/12 teams ranked (top ten teams in parenthess)
1994: 3(1), 3(2) not incl 2 future Big XII teams
1995: 4(2), 4(4) not incl 3 future Big XII teams
1996: 4(2), 4(2)
1997: 4(1), 4(2)*
1998: 4(2), 4(1)
Going by the AP, it appears both conferences are about even, even though in 1994-5, the Big 8 had 3 fewer teams. The Big 8/12 has an 11-8 edge in top ten teams, however.
*This was the year Michigan was bragging how tough the Big 10 was compared the Big XII. You’ll notice I picked the AP, which gave Michigan the top ranking.
“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument” - William McAdoo
From what I see… Hubzilla brings the numerical facts.
The Big8/12 seems better. Then let’s not forget the fact that in the past 10 years:
Big8/12 - 4 National Championships (2 shared)
Big 10 - 1 National Championship (1 shared)
SEC - 3 National Championships (None Shared)
ACC - 2 National Championships (1 shared)
Heck… even the ACC fares better than the Big10 in winning the “big one”.
Lowry Stiles…
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
Well to be accurate the numbers shown don’t mean much. A better analysis would be of those ranked finishes how many are by the same teams? It doesn’t make the big XII equal when 2/3 of those ranking s are garnered by 2 teams. Nebraska can’t play itself. You’ve got to look at the rankings excluding the teams in question, and the combined opponents records.
Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I was busy crunching the numbers. Hubzilla, you had best throw out that media guide because the numbers you gave are mostly wrong. Here are the real stats:
1996 AP
2-OSU 6-Neb
7-PSU 8-Col
15-NW 17-KSU
18-Iowa 23-Tex
20-Mich
1997 AP
1-Mich 2-Neb
12-OSU 8-KSU
15-Purdue 20-Tex A&M
16-PSU 23-Missou
24-Ok.St.
1998 AP
2-OSU 10-KSU
6-Wisc 11-Tex A&M
12-Mich 15-Texas
17-PSU 19-Neb
24-Purdue
Notice that for 1996 and 1998, for every ranked Big 12 team, there is a higher ranked Big 10 team and there are more of them. In 1997, the Big 12 has the advantage in numbers, but 3 of the 5 teams are in the bottom 5. There’s more data, but I don’t have time to enter it now.
More to come,
TheDude
Omniscient said:
In the last five years (1994-98), Nebraska was responsible for 21% (5/24) of the Big XII’s Top 25 finishes. Looking at the top 3 teams from each conference:
OSU(5), PSU(5), UM(5)= 15/22= 68% of Big Ten’s Top 25
NWtern(2), Pur(2), Iowa(2), Wisc(1)
NU(5), KSU(5), Colorado(3)=13/24= 54% of the Big XII’s Top 25
Texas(4),A&M(3),Mizzou(2),KU(1),TexTech(1)
(if I replaced CU with UT, it would be 58%)
For the top 3 teams’ bowl winning pct, The Big Ten won 60%, Big XII won 71%
The Big XII had more variety in ranked teams, while the Big 10 was more top-heavy (PSU, OSU, UM). The top 3 Big XII teams appeared in the top 10 more often (10-6) and fared better in the bowls vs out-of-conference competition.
TheDude said:
Looking more carefully, I missed some on both conferences. Thanks.
Year, Big 12, Big 10 (top 10)
1994: 5(2), 3(1)
1995: 7(4), 5(2)
1996: 4(2), 5(2)
1997: 4(2), 4(1)
1998: 4(1), 5(2)
Big 12 teams still hold an 11-8 advantage in Top 10 teams and a 24-22 advantage in Top 25. I’ve included 5 Texas team rankings (no Top 10 teams, though) for 1994-95. It was easier than trying to compensate for 8 teams vs 11 in the Big Ten.
Even though the Big 12 has one more team than the Big 10(sic), I don’t see anything that significantly says the Big 10 is a stronger conference.
I think a lot of the misconceptions about Nebraska’s “easy schedule” is from the way they dominated their conference in the above years (except 1998). In 1995, they outscored their opponents 53-15 (avg), and 1997, 47-16, with only 2 games decided by less than 10 points. However, when NU played the SEC (IMHO the top conference) champ in the bowl games those years, they won by strikingly similar scores: beating #2 Florida 62-24 and #3 Tennessee 42-17 respectively.
You can draw your own conclusion from the above, whether they benefit the Big XII or Big 10. I attend Nebraska, so I’m a little biased, as are Big 10 fans toward their schools. I’d be interested to hear from fans outside those conferences.
“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument” - William McAdoo
As for the Big 12 numbers game, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Colorado still dominated when they were the Big 8 (prior to 1996 season).
Looking back even farther:
1995
Big 8: Nebraska (1), Colorado (5), K State (7), Kansas (9)
Big 10: Ohio St. (6), NU (8), Penn State, (13), Mich (17)
Also, Texas (14) and Texas A&M (15), Then part of the SWC, but now Big XII members, were in the top 25…
Big 8 had all four ranked schools in the TOP 10!. 1994, they had #1 and #3 (Nebraska and Colorado), but a huge influx of WAC schools into the Top 20 cut down on the numbers in the lower rankings.
There is no doubt that as far as the POLLS are concerned, there is a HUGE Big 12/8 bias.
Assuming “Tier 1” conferences to be: Big XII (Big 8 prior to 1996), Big 10, SEC, ACC, PAC-10 and SWC prior to 1996; “Tier 2” conferences to be: WAC/Mountain West, and Big East, and “Tier 3” to be MAC, Big West, and C-USA, we find some interesting stats:
1998
Tier 1: 17 Top 20 finishes
Tier 2: 2
Tier 3: 1
1997
Tier 1: 18
Tier 2: 1
Tier 3: 1
1996
Tier 1: 17
Tier 2: 3
Tier 3: 0
1995
Tier 1: 17
Tier 2: 3
Tier 3: 0
1994
Tier 1: 16
Tier 2: 4
Tier 3: 0
1993
Tier 1: 17
Tier 2: 4
Tier 3: 0
1992
Tier 1: 17
Tier 2: 3
Tier 3: 0
1991
Tier 1: 17
Tier 2: 2 (including #1 Miami-Fl)
Tier 3: 1
1990
Tier 1: 18
Tier 2: 2
Tier 3: 0
1989
Tier 1: 19
Tier 2: 1 (#1 Miami-FL)
Tier 3: 0
So, for the past 10 seasons, “Top tier” conferences have accounted for greater than 3/4 all of the Top 20 finishes, with 1/2 of the teams. To be fair, The Big East was formed in 1990, so Miami-FL was techincally independant, but for simplicity sake I count them as Big East. Now, since the 1936 there have been (the beginning of the Media polls) only 6 National Champions that did not come from the “Tier 1” conferences (and by that I am judging by modern conferences) and none from “tier 3” conferences. Why are the MAC, Big West, and C-USA still IN Div I-A? Conference USA puts up a top 25 team evey 2-3 yars or so, and the last Big West school to crack the Top 20 was SD State in 1977. Even they play in the WAC now. No current Big West or MAC school has been ranked in the Top 20 since the splitting of Div I (1978). All of the founding Big West schools bolted for the WAC in the 1990’s to give themselves a shot at being ranked, (precipitating the founding of the Moutain West conference to give charter WAC schools a shot at being ranked), currently the Big West is exclusively Big Sky (Div I-AA) schools that have been promoted from I-AA to I-A for no explainable reason. The best MAC school of recent years was Marshall, and they only joined in 1997. Let’s demote these conferences down to I-AA and require I-A schools to play more I-A schools. In all likelyhood, Minnesota can make a bowl game this year by going 2-5 against Tier 1 schools. Not to pick on the Gophers, but things need to be recalculated here…
Jason R Remy
“No amount of legislation can solve America’s problems.”
– Jimmy Carter (1980)