You do understand that this is NOT an endorsement of the Big-10, don’t you? If the Big-10 teams scheduled lots of games against tough non-conference opponents, that might make a difference. But all it really means is that even the teams at the bottom of the conference made certain to schedule four pansies to win against out of conference.
The Big-10 is no better or worse than other conferences at this silly game. At the top of the ladder, the teams (OSU, Michigan, Penn St.) tend to schedule at least one tough opponent. Michigan’s schedule had both Oregon AND Notre Dame, and you can believe that no one expected Notre Dame to be a three win team this year. Yes, they also had Appalachian St., but as has been pointed out, that’s not a team of pansies, though it never should have laid a glove on Michigan, really. The SEC tends to be much the same way; they have their regional second division teams they play (usually three games against them), then you will see one good solid game, or maybe two relatively solid games against out-of-conference opponents.
Now if you want to know who my hat is off to, it is off to the Pac-10. Unlike the rest of the country, that conference forces its members to do a complete nine game round-robin against the rest of the conference, leaving only three games to play out of conference. USC had both Nebraska AND Notre Dame on the schedule, and it ain’t THEIR fault that both teams have fallen on hard times relatively speaking. In a normal year, that would have been a killer schedule. And they also tend to schedule games against the members of the WAC and Mountain West conferences, and frankly, for my money, those teams are uniformly tougher than Sun Belt and Conf. USA teams.
But in the end run, it’s all measured in terms of inter-conference play. Just WHAT is the record of the Big-10 against the SEC lately? :dubious:
You do understand that this is NOT an endorsement of the Big-10, don’t you? If the Big-10 teams scheduled lots of games against tough non-conference opponents, that might make a difference. But all it really means is that even the teams at the bottom of the conference made certain to schedule four pansies to win against out of conference.
The Big-10 is no better or worse than other conferences at this silly game. At the top of the ladder, the teams (OSU, Michigan, Penn St.) tend to schedule at least one tough opponent. Michigan’s schedule had both Oregon AND Notre Dame, and you can believe that no one expected Notre Dame to be a three win team this year. Yes, they also had Appalachian St., but as has been pointed out, that’s not a team of pansies, though it never should have laid a glove on Michigan, really. The SEC tends to be much the same way; they have their regional second division teams they play (usually three games against them), then you will see one good solid game, or maybe two relatively solid games against out-of-conference opponents.
Now if you want to know who my hat is off to, it is off to the Pac-10. Unlike the rest of the country, that conference forces its members to do a complete nine game round-robin against the rest of the conference, leaving only three games to play out of conference. USC had both Nebraska AND Notre Dame on the schedule, and it ain’t THEIR fault that both teams have fallen on hard times relatively speaking. In a normal year, that would have been a killer schedule. And they also tend to schedule games against the members of the WAC and Mountain West conferences, and frankly, for my money, those teams are uniformly tougher than Sun Belt and Conf. USA teams.
But in the end run, it’s all measured in terms of inter-conference play. Just WHAT is the record of the Big-10 against the SEC lately? :dubious:
I’m all for it, but with one concern: Last year somebody did something like this and acted like Arkansas was SEC-2 (Which they technically might have been, but not realistically. They were last year’s Tennessee). I don’t want anybody doing that kind of silliness.
A valid concern. My algorithm (at least, for version 1.0) would be:
Each team brings points to the bowl game based on conference standing.
BCS conference champion: 9 pts, #2 8 pts…
Mid-major conference champion: 6 pts, #2 5 pts…
Bowl winner’s conference gets the loser’s points.
Bowl loser’s conference gets a negative value equal to the loser’s points/3.
(Rationale for getting the loser’s points: rewards upsets. Rationale for a negative value: no reward for the conference for just making a bowl game.)
For conferences split into divisions: Winner of the CCG is #1. After that, the conference teams are merged and ranked like a non-split conference: conference W-L, then overall W-L…then BCS ranking; then (if not ranked by the BCS), AP ranking. If a team is completely unranked…who cares what their point value is, anyway.
Washington played tough teams-- I wouldn’t call them weak. They played four teams that spent time in the top 2 this season: OSU, Oregon, USC, and Cal.
Anyway, UH had a crappy first quarter. Once the second quarter had begun and they realized the game had started :p, they shut Washington down. Washington didn’t score at all in the second half. And Brennan’s drive for the winning touchdown was pure magic. He was going to score. Simple as that.
Also, we convincingly beat then-17th-ranked Boise State the previous weekend.
I’m not saying we’ll win against Georgia, of course, but I would much rather be in UH’s shoes for this game. If UH loses, they’ll still walk away feeling damn good about themselves for going undefeated, securing their first-ever BCS bowl game, and winning the WAC. But even if Georgia wins, they’ll still be disappointed they got snubbed for the big dance. Beating Hawaii isn’t much of a consolation prize.
I just plugged in the point values for each bowl game, and I’m rather pleased with how my ranking methodology worked out (so far). Most of the games have participants within 1 or 2 points of each other – even games between BCS and Mid-Major teams.
There appear to be 3 mis-matches: the PapaJohn’s Bowl between Cincinnati (6 points) and Southern Miss (1 pt); Champs Sports Bowl, between Boston College (8 pts) and Michigan State (2 pts); and Emerald Bowl: Maryland (2 pts) vs Oregon State (7 pts).
The Who Cares Bowl: The Insight Bowl, between Indiana (2 pts) vs Oklahoma State (2 pts). At least they’re evenly matched.
Pistol Pete shall shoot you dead for that comment jsc. Just so you know when the big ol cowboy in orange comes to your door with a shotgun and six-shooter.
Just to clarify, how many points does Tennessee bring? Because if I understand your system correctly, it should be no more than 6 (LSU - 9. UGA - 8. Fla - 7. Tennessee - 6. Auburn - 5. Arkansas - 4. Beyond that it’s hard to say.)
Then again… I noticed that Arkansas is in the Cotton Bowl against Mizzou (There’s a whole nother debate: Does Kansas bring 8 points and Mizzou bring 7?) Is this based on what order they got picked for their bowls?
Tennessee is in the Outback bowl against Wisconsin, who is the Big10 #3 (if you go by rankings) or #4 (if you go by conference W/L.)
Doesn’t the Cotton Bowl outrank the Outback bowl?
I can no longer find a site that lists the bowl with who normally gets picked for them. (eg. SEC-3 vs. Pac10-3).
I personally would definitely put Florida higher than Tennessee. I think that Rankings and Order-of-selection are both more relevant than conference W/L record.
That said, I really don’t know about Kansas and Missou.
The more I think about it, I think that BCS rankings are the most valid criteria, since bowl selections often involve some other factors (ie. traditional bowl matchup, who will bring most money, etc.)
Apparently not any more which brings up a side question: how and why did the Cotton Bowl lose importance as a bowl game? It used to be among the Rose, Orange, and Sugar Bowls in terms of prestige and importance but is now strictly second-tier.
The Cotton Bowl and Outback Bowl pay out the same amount, but I’d say the Cotton Bowl is more prestigious. If they ever add another BCS bowl it’d be the Cotton Bowl (they’ve been petitioning for awhile.)
The SEC doesn’t differentiate between the #3/#4/#5 bowls so Outback, Chick Fil-A, and Cotton are all the same to them (with similar or identical payouts for all the bowls) and they all work with the conference for the matchups. The Big 12 has a more established selection order, so it makes sense for the Big 12 #2 to be playing the SEC #6. BCS takes away the top 2, Capital One picks #2, Outback #3, Chick Fil-A #4 and the Cotton gets #5 Arkansas.
And lost by an average of two touchdowns. Sure, they played USC tought, but Washington still was a bottom team in the Pac 10. Oregon, OSU, and Cal all handled them without any trouble.
Big 10 #3 or Pac 10 #4 or whatever pick number has nothing to do with any rankings. It’s simple selection order by the bowls, like a schoolyard pick-up game. Big ten #3 means you get the 3 pick from the big ten(and the fact that the BCS can take 1 or two teams from the big conferences kinda screws it up, because the # 2 team may be gone to the BCS so the #2 pick on record by contract to a bowl may only get the #3 team), but whoever has the higher number gets the earlier pick from the teams that are left. And things like fan base are a huge consideration for the picking bowl. The only actual rule I know of is that all teams with winning over-all records (i.e.7-6 and above) must be taken before any even team (i.e. 6-6) is taken from that conference. But a Bowl committee can take a 7-6 team with 3-5 in conference before a team that is 10-2 with 6-2 in conference from the same conference if they want to. It’s all about the revenue generated.
Except for the big old time bowls. The Rose bowl for example is contracted to take the Big 10 champion vs the Pac 10 champion(decided by how those conferences internally crown a champion), plus now if one(or both) of those champs is in the BCS Championship game they can choose an alternate(s) from anywhere in the BCS pool
