I continue to find it fascinating when various commentators care more about what they wish had happened during this particular football season than actually analyzing the actual season that was actually played.
To recap:
1. The Pac-10 has had a rough season. Only two teams have fewer than five losses. The third team in the conference is 6-6. Only four teams have winning records. Fully half the conference isn't bowl eligible - counting sanctioned USC among the bowl-eligible. Even in the Big East, three quarters of the conference is bowl-eligible. The WAC and MWC both have half their teams bowl-eligible (9 of the 18 total teams in the two leagues). And obviously, the Pac-10 thinks enough of Utah (and Colorado, for that matter) to beg them to join.
2. The Big Ten, similarly, is Aces and spaces. Only three teams have fewer than five losses. Heck, only three teams have winning records in conference play. Unlike the Pac-10, at least there are three quality programs instead of two and the bulk of the league is headed to a bowl game. But similarly to the Pac-10, those top teams played very few games against quality opponents.
3. Name the best team Stanford has beaten all year. Five loss Notre Dame? Or perhaps you prefer the five loss USC team that lost to Notre Dame? Or five loss Arizona? Similarly,
4. Name the best team Ohio State has beaten all year? The five loss Iowa team that lost to the above-mentioned five loss Arizona team? The five loss Miami team that, in addition to losing to Big East South Florida, lost to fellow ACC teams Florida State and Virginia Tech, teams which were themselves beaten by Oklahoma and Boise State? In contrast,
5. Michigan State, Nevada, and Boise State are one-loss teams that have much better wins than Stanford and Ohio State. Is it even relevant that Michigan State beat Wisconsin, who beat Ohio State?
6. And then there are the two-loss teams. Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU are all teams with more impressive wins than Stanford and Ohio State. Arkansas gets into the BCS because the Sugar Bowl won't pick a slate without an SEC team, and Oklahoma gets to the Fiesta Bowl as Big 12 champs. LSU can't get in because the BCS only allows two teams per conference. This leaves two other slots. No way should Stanford and Ohio State be ranked above all three of the other one loss teams plus the two available two-loss teams. So,
7. Voila. We'll be subjected to another month of hearing about 'big name programs' and 'talent' and 'matchups' and basically anything to distract from those inconvenient 2010 Ws and Ls.
8. Bowl records don't prove anything. The point is who deserves to get there; most any team has a shot at beating most any other team in one game. However, this could be a particularly clear year about the over-ratedness of Ohio State and Stanford and the supremacy of the Big 12. The Big 12 in its finale as a twelve team league stands a very good chance of only losing one or two bowl games.
9. Nebraska hasn't been helping the Big 12. I'll organize some thoughts at some point about the transition of the Big 12. But the short story is that losing to Nebraska hurts those other Big 12 teams a lot, while Nebraska's wins hasn't helped them get ranked highly or helped those teams that beat Nebraska jump up the standings. It's no coincidence that both the Pac-10 and Big Ten are sending at-large teams, while the Big 12, with four ten win teams, gets none. Oregon is getting into the national championship over TCU.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Oklahoma
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. LSU
10. Oklahoma State
11. Nevada
12. Boise State
13. Ohio State
14. Stanford
15. Virginia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Nebraska
18. Alabama
19. Utah
20. Florida State
21. South Carolina
22. West Virginia
23. Mississippi State
24. Hawaii
25. San Diego State
Showing posts with label ncaa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ncaa. Show all posts
12/07/2010
11/30/2010
no wonder the pac-10 needs utah
I've decided on a new way of looking at the Pac-10 this year. They're not a weak major conference. They're a good mid-major conference. It looks very much like the Mountain West and WAC, from the disparity between top and bottom right down to recruiting Utah to join the Pac-10. Fully half of the conference will finish the season with a losing record - unless, of course, Arizona picks up its fifth loss and Oregon its first. Stanford and Oregon have only beaten three teams each with a winning record all season. They each face just four bowl-eligible teams - including sanctioned USC.
This perspective helps address what to do with the fact that there are four one loss teams which I just don't think have had as good a season as most of the two loss teams. Specifically: Stanford, Nevada, Boise State, and Ohio State. Of those four, Nevada and Boise State have the best wins, not Stanford and Ohio State.
It's also the problem with the BCS. Not the rankings themselves so much as how the bowls choose their participants. If Stanford is good enough for a bowl, then so is Nevada and Boise. On the other hand, if the Sugar Bowl gets to pick Arkansas because they're in the SEC, that shows the problem with not having a BCS bowl in the Big 12. Over the long term, the easiest solution is adding the Cotton Bowl or creating some bowl with a particular tie-in to the Big 12 that's actually in the Big 12. In the short-term, my solution this year is to have the Sugar Bowl be Arkansas and Missouri.
As for the rest, here's a take a little different than most, but mostly in line now that Auburn is clearly at the top, TCU better than Boise, and Alabama now having the 5th best season in the SEC:
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Nebraska
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. Oklahoma
10. LSU
11. Oklahoma State
12. Ohio State
13. Nevada
14. Boise State
15. Stanford
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Alabama
20. Florida State
21. Utah
22. Mississippi State
23. Arizona
24. West Virginia
25. San Diego State
This perspective helps address what to do with the fact that there are four one loss teams which I just don't think have had as good a season as most of the two loss teams. Specifically: Stanford, Nevada, Boise State, and Ohio State. Of those four, Nevada and Boise State have the best wins, not Stanford and Ohio State.
It's also the problem with the BCS. Not the rankings themselves so much as how the bowls choose their participants. If Stanford is good enough for a bowl, then so is Nevada and Boise. On the other hand, if the Sugar Bowl gets to pick Arkansas because they're in the SEC, that shows the problem with not having a BCS bowl in the Big 12. Over the long term, the easiest solution is adding the Cotton Bowl or creating some bowl with a particular tie-in to the Big 12 that's actually in the Big 12. In the short-term, my solution this year is to have the Sugar Bowl be Arkansas and Missouri.
As for the rest, here's a take a little different than most, but mostly in line now that Auburn is clearly at the top, TCU better than Boise, and Alabama now having the 5th best season in the SEC:
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Nebraska
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. Oklahoma
10. LSU
11. Oklahoma State
12. Ohio State
13. Nevada
14. Boise State
15. Stanford
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Alabama
20. Florida State
21. Utah
22. Mississippi State
23. Arizona
24. West Virginia
25. San Diego State
11/22/2010
finale for the ages
Whatever else there is to say about the season, the Big 12 is going out in style. When you look at the combination of top teams, bowl eligible teams, and race for the champion, no other conference is close. The SEC is having a down year; that happens from time to time. Their conference championship game has already been decided; Auburn and South Carolina can both lose and they'll still face each other. It's really the Pac 10 and Big Ten I would pick on. The Pac 10 is awful. Fully half of the conference has a losing record. Assuming Oregon doesn't embarrass itself at Arizona, the Pac 10 only has two teams with fewer than four losses! Outside of their game against each other, Oregon and Stanford won't have played a single top 20 team all season. That's unbelievable when you think about it.
Meanwhile, in the Big Ten, there are three good teams. Everybody else has at least four losses there, too. And the one that won the head-to-head matchup isn't the one getting the respect. However, because Michigan State and Ohio State didn't play each other this year, that means they also, like Oregon and Stanford, had no other game in the entire season against a top 20 team.
At least the SEC, like the Big 12, has had its top teams playing good competition for more than one game. And the ACC and Big East are having competitive races; their shortfall is a lack of victories by their top teams out of conference.
In contrast, in the Big 12, every top team has played multiple games against other top teams. If Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M had only played one top 20 team, all five of them would have zero or one losses. Think about that. Every top team took care of non-conference games. Even bottom teams, like Colorado and Kansas, have wins against non-conference opponents like Hawaii, Georgia, and Georgia Tech. The championship game won't be determined until the very end of the season. There's a legitimate shot of having either ten bowl eligible teams or four different teams with at least ten wins each.
It seems fitting that part of the story comes down to Big 12 quitters Colorado and Nebraska. Does CU end its Big 12 run with an embarrassing season, or do they send NU packing with a gut-wrenching loss?
Meanwhile, in the Big Ten, there are three good teams. Everybody else has at least four losses there, too. And the one that won the head-to-head matchup isn't the one getting the respect. However, because Michigan State and Ohio State didn't play each other this year, that means they also, like Oregon and Stanford, had no other game in the entire season against a top 20 team.
At least the SEC, like the Big 12, has had its top teams playing good competition for more than one game. And the ACC and Big East are having competitive races; their shortfall is a lack of victories by their top teams out of conference.
In contrast, in the Big 12, every top team has played multiple games against other top teams. If Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M had only played one top 20 team, all five of them would have zero or one losses. Think about that. Every top team took care of non-conference games. Even bottom teams, like Colorado and Kansas, have wins against non-conference opponents like Hawaii, Georgia, and Georgia Tech. The championship game won't be determined until the very end of the season. There's a legitimate shot of having either ten bowl eligible teams or four different teams with at least ten wins each.
It seems fitting that part of the story comes down to Big 12 quitters Colorado and Nebraska. Does CU end its Big 12 run with an embarrassing season, or do they send NU packing with a gut-wrenching loss?
11/15/2010
i am spartacus
The title of this post takes as inspiration the hilarious police-state saga of Robin Hood airport in England. A frustrated airline passenger made a joke. On Twitter. And authorities, naturally, took it in stride.
By fining him for threatening to blow up the airport.
In response, thousands of people started using the hashtag iamspartacus.
Perhaps the Michigan State Spartans need a similar flurry of activity. The human voters seem to think they're not, like, in first place in the Big Ten. You know, having beaten Wisconsin. Like, on the field. During the season. The same Wisconsin team that turned around and beat Ohio State. On the field. During the season.
LSU, Missouri, and Oklahoma State are of course still underrated by the humans, as well, and Boise State remains overrated. This is the week I bump Oregon over TCU, too; a little bit sad, but it looks like Oregon really should be there. Utah, San Diego State, and Baylor are good wins, but the Stanford win for Oregon just seems to outweigh that now.
There is some good news, though. Alabama bias is officially over. And it looks very likely that the national championship will have Auburn, Oregon, and/or TCU. So come on humans, you are making progress. We're almost there.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Boise State
5. LSU
6. Nebraska
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arkansas
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Mississippi State
20. Iowa
21. Arizona
22. NC State
23. Florida State
24. Utah
25. Nevada
By fining him for threatening to blow up the airport.
In response, thousands of people started using the hashtag iamspartacus.
Perhaps the Michigan State Spartans need a similar flurry of activity. The human voters seem to think they're not, like, in first place in the Big Ten. You know, having beaten Wisconsin. Like, on the field. During the season. The same Wisconsin team that turned around and beat Ohio State. On the field. During the season.
LSU, Missouri, and Oklahoma State are of course still underrated by the humans, as well, and Boise State remains overrated. This is the week I bump Oregon over TCU, too; a little bit sad, but it looks like Oregon really should be there. Utah, San Diego State, and Baylor are good wins, but the Stanford win for Oregon just seems to outweigh that now.
There is some good news, though. Alabama bias is officially over. And it looks very likely that the national championship will have Auburn, Oregon, and/or TCU. So come on humans, you are making progress. We're almost there.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Boise State
5. LSU
6. Nebraska
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arkansas
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Mississippi State
20. Iowa
21. Arizona
22. NC State
23. Florida State
24. Utah
25. Nevada
11/08/2010
week 11 rankings
This is why they play the games. Alabama is still the third best team in the SEC.
And Michigan State still leads the Big Ten.
And horror of horrors, Nebraska is the best team in the Big 12 the year they are leaving. At least Colorado sucks; that helps, slightly.
The humans have acknowledged their SEC errors, and they now have TCU ahead of Boise State, but they still show silliness up north. Therefore, another ranking is necessary to correct these deficiencies.
1. Auburn
2. TCU
3. Oregon
4. Boise State
5. Nebraska
6. LSU
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arizona
16. Iowa
17. Arkansas
18. Mississippi State
19. Utah
20. Virginia Tech
21. Baylor
22. Kansas State
23. Texas A&M
24. Florida State
25. Florida
Subject to change with the actual games played next week, of course.
And Michigan State still leads the Big Ten.
And horror of horrors, Nebraska is the best team in the Big 12 the year they are leaving. At least Colorado sucks; that helps, slightly.
The humans have acknowledged their SEC errors, and they now have TCU ahead of Boise State, but they still show silliness up north. Therefore, another ranking is necessary to correct these deficiencies.
1. Auburn
2. TCU
3. Oregon
4. Boise State
5. Nebraska
6. LSU
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arizona
16. Iowa
17. Arkansas
18. Mississippi State
19. Utah
20. Virginia Tech
21. Baylor
22. Kansas State
23. Texas A&M
24. Florida State
25. Florida
Subject to change with the actual games played next week, of course.
11/05/2010
fed rally sports trifecta
I'm actually home enough now to a put a few thoughts down! The past couple weeks have been fantastically busy.
DC was absolutely gorgeous this past weekend. Warm for Halloween, brilliantly clear skies, perfect backdrop against the Capitol. We overwhelmed the city; literally. There were people waiting so long for the subway in the morning that they didn't make it to the mall by the time the rally was over. It took Doug over half an hour just to buy a ticket at 9 in the morning. Oh, and Jon, there are bees in DC in October. One was buzzing around our section of the crowd for about half the rally.
The Federal Reserve is even more anxious and insecure than I imagined. They're so afraid now that they openly view the public as the enemy, personified beautifully by how they handle their flagship building, the Eccles building. One of the great structures to come out of the Great Depression, it's built in dignified stone and marble on Constitution Ave overlooking the northwest end of the mall. We just don't build like that anymore. Unlike many other government buildings in the area, this structure is built back from the road, allowing a simple public plaza area between the steps and the street. Fountains and stone benches flank the sides, while stone pathways and open grassy areas comprise the middle.
Bernanke has instructed his security guards to chase off American citizens having the audacity to use this public plaza, far away from the actual entrance to the building. On a Sunday afternoon. With the Marine Corps Marathon running along Constitution Ave. I never knew how powerful a scrawny white dude was to confront our failed and fraudulent financial crooks until I was literally chased away from their HQ. I can't think of anything that would better symbolize what is going on in our country right now.
Except maybe college football voters. Just totally bizarre. Nebraska is ranked 6th by the computers, 10.5 by the humans. LSU tied Nebraska for 6th in the computers, but has an 11.5 by the humans. The machines have Michigan State at 10; it's 15.5 for the humans. Missouri is number 4 in the computers, 14.5 in the human polls. Of course, Alabama and Ohio State work the other way: 15 and 16 in the computer rankings, 5 and 8 in the human polls.
This is getting to the point where it's hysterically funny. Michigan State is number 1 in the Big Ten right now, except the humans think they're number 3. Missouri and LSU both lost to much better teams than Alabama, so of course the humans think Alabama is having a much better season. Forget playoffs. We should just select the BCS participants from the preseason prognostications. Playing the games seems to be an irrelevant waste of time. I can't wait to see how this weekend turns out. And I do wonder if Nebraska is going to get the Missouri treatment. What if Missouri wins out, Nebraska loses in the Big 12 Championship, and then the BCS selects Missouri over Nebraska the way Kansas was chosen over Missouri a couple years ago?
DC was absolutely gorgeous this past weekend. Warm for Halloween, brilliantly clear skies, perfect backdrop against the Capitol. We overwhelmed the city; literally. There were people waiting so long for the subway in the morning that they didn't make it to the mall by the time the rally was over. It took Doug over half an hour just to buy a ticket at 9 in the morning. Oh, and Jon, there are bees in DC in October. One was buzzing around our section of the crowd for about half the rally.
The Federal Reserve is even more anxious and insecure than I imagined. They're so afraid now that they openly view the public as the enemy, personified beautifully by how they handle their flagship building, the Eccles building. One of the great structures to come out of the Great Depression, it's built in dignified stone and marble on Constitution Ave overlooking the northwest end of the mall. We just don't build like that anymore. Unlike many other government buildings in the area, this structure is built back from the road, allowing a simple public plaza area between the steps and the street. Fountains and stone benches flank the sides, while stone pathways and open grassy areas comprise the middle.
Bernanke has instructed his security guards to chase off American citizens having the audacity to use this public plaza, far away from the actual entrance to the building. On a Sunday afternoon. With the Marine Corps Marathon running along Constitution Ave. I never knew how powerful a scrawny white dude was to confront our failed and fraudulent financial crooks until I was literally chased away from their HQ. I can't think of anything that would better symbolize what is going on in our country right now.
Except maybe college football voters. Just totally bizarre. Nebraska is ranked 6th by the computers, 10.5 by the humans. LSU tied Nebraska for 6th in the computers, but has an 11.5 by the humans. The machines have Michigan State at 10; it's 15.5 for the humans. Missouri is number 4 in the computers, 14.5 in the human polls. Of course, Alabama and Ohio State work the other way: 15 and 16 in the computer rankings, 5 and 8 in the human polls.
This is getting to the point where it's hysterically funny. Michigan State is number 1 in the Big Ten right now, except the humans think they're number 3. Missouri and LSU both lost to much better teams than Alabama, so of course the humans think Alabama is having a much better season. Forget playoffs. We should just select the BCS participants from the preseason prognostications. Playing the games seems to be an irrelevant waste of time. I can't wait to see how this weekend turns out. And I do wonder if Nebraska is going to get the Missouri treatment. What if Missouri wins out, Nebraska loses in the Big 12 Championship, and then the BCS selects Missouri over Nebraska the way Kansas was chosen over Missouri a couple years ago?
10/27/2010
(non-election) polls and margins of victory
Earlier this week was a detailed post. Today a specific example of one problem with lazy poll voters in college football: the margin of victory. Quite simply, margin of victory in itself is a relatively useless bit of information. Every game is unique.
Using margin of victory creates hilariously ridiculous constructs.
For example, margin of victory is one of the few things that people who rank a team like Boise State over a team like Missouri or Auburn can point to as evidence for why Boise State is a 'better' team. Well, here's a little fun comparison. Colorado is either the second to worst or worst team in the Big 12 (that will be decided when CU plays KU). This Colorado team beat Hawaii 31-13, an 18 point spread.
That's the same Hawaii that's tied for first in the WAC, Boise State's conference.
Now, Hawaii and Boise State have both played Louisiana Tech, another WAC team. Hawaii won by 20 points, and Boise State by 29. Using margin of victory, that makes Boise State look a little more impressive than Hawaii. How much more impressive does that make them look than Colorado? Then, if you learn that Missouri beat Colorado by 26 points, how would you compare Boise State and Missouri? This sort of exercise wouldn't suggest that Missouri and Boise State are roughly equal teams. It would suggest that Colorado and Boise State are roughly equal teams, with Missouri being notably better.
Now, I don't think Missouri is significantly superior to Boise State; I think they're pretty evenly matched teams, actually. But if you're going to apply concepts other than wins/losses and strength of schedule, then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes, the additional factors can make things even more bizarre. If you subtract Colorado's 18 point spread from Boise State's points, that makes their margins of victory look a lot less impressive.
Expecting schools like Michigan State, Missouri, or Auburn to post point spreads remotely close to Boise State (or Oregon, for that matter, whose only game against a team with a winning record so far is Stanford) is comical.
Fortunately, the season is long enough that if the Spartans, Tigers, and Tigers continue winning, they will jump Oregon and Boise State. But particularly with Boise State, the question is, why wouldn't they already have jumped them? They've got the same record. They've beaten better opponents. And margin of victory looks pretty similar when the games in question are actually analyzed. All three of the Big 12/SEC/Big Ten undefeateds have shown they can win by over 20 points. They just can't do that regularly against top opponents.
After all, just look at the score from the Boise State - Virginia Tech game. Boise State won by a whopping three points, less than Michigan State's ten point victory over Wisconsin, less than Missouri's nine point victory over Oklahoma, and less than Auburn's seven point victory over LSU. Both the human pollsters and the computers agree that Virginia Tech is not as good as Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and LSU.
I think it's highly unlikely that all three of these teams remain undefeated. But at least one of them might, and it will be really interesting at that juncture to hear why people place Oregon, Boise State, and/or some one-loss team (say, Alabama) ahead of them.
Using margin of victory creates hilariously ridiculous constructs.
For example, margin of victory is one of the few things that people who rank a team like Boise State over a team like Missouri or Auburn can point to as evidence for why Boise State is a 'better' team. Well, here's a little fun comparison. Colorado is either the second to worst or worst team in the Big 12 (that will be decided when CU plays KU). This Colorado team beat Hawaii 31-13, an 18 point spread.
That's the same Hawaii that's tied for first in the WAC, Boise State's conference.
Now, Hawaii and Boise State have both played Louisiana Tech, another WAC team. Hawaii won by 20 points, and Boise State by 29. Using margin of victory, that makes Boise State look a little more impressive than Hawaii. How much more impressive does that make them look than Colorado? Then, if you learn that Missouri beat Colorado by 26 points, how would you compare Boise State and Missouri? This sort of exercise wouldn't suggest that Missouri and Boise State are roughly equal teams. It would suggest that Colorado and Boise State are roughly equal teams, with Missouri being notably better.
Now, I don't think Missouri is significantly superior to Boise State; I think they're pretty evenly matched teams, actually. But if you're going to apply concepts other than wins/losses and strength of schedule, then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes, the additional factors can make things even more bizarre. If you subtract Colorado's 18 point spread from Boise State's points, that makes their margins of victory look a lot less impressive.
Expecting schools like Michigan State, Missouri, or Auburn to post point spreads remotely close to Boise State (or Oregon, for that matter, whose only game against a team with a winning record so far is Stanford) is comical.
Fortunately, the season is long enough that if the Spartans, Tigers, and Tigers continue winning, they will jump Oregon and Boise State. But particularly with Boise State, the question is, why wouldn't they already have jumped them? They've got the same record. They've beaten better opponents. And margin of victory looks pretty similar when the games in question are actually analyzed. All three of the Big 12/SEC/Big Ten undefeateds have shown they can win by over 20 points. They just can't do that regularly against top opponents.
After all, just look at the score from the Boise State - Virginia Tech game. Boise State won by a whopping three points, less than Michigan State's ten point victory over Wisconsin, less than Missouri's nine point victory over Oklahoma, and less than Auburn's seven point victory over LSU. Both the human pollsters and the computers agree that Virginia Tech is not as good as Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and LSU.
I think it's highly unlikely that all three of these teams remain undefeated. But at least one of them might, and it will be really interesting at that juncture to hear why people place Oregon, Boise State, and/or some one-loss team (say, Alabama) ahead of them.
10/26/2010
machines smarter than humans, again
I was prepared for this to be a slow, sad sports season, really. The Chiefs and Rams are coming off of horrific stretches. The Big 12 is saying farewell to Nebraska, heading east, and Colorado, looking west. And there are More Important Things, from the economy and midterm elections to new phases for family and friends. Not to mention that I'm behind on computer games.
But dang nabbit, something is in the water this fall. After a hot summer, this fall has been fantastic. Missouri's NFL franchises are 7-6. That's a winning record; better seasons for both teams have already been assured and we're less than half way through this season!
The Missouri Tigers have also won 7 games. Without losing any. To top it off, the Spartans are undefeated as well, while the media darlings of Alabama and Ohio State have both lost a game already.
And that's where this all comes to a head. The silly season of incoherent poll voters is in full swing. For all the incessant yacking and yammering about how awful the BCS is, the main problem is that the human polls account for twice as much weighting as the computers. (human) Pollsters that do things like looking at prior years instead of the current year. Or assign present values based upon what they believe will happen in the future instead of what has already happened up to this point. Or apply different criteria to different teams. It's truly bizarre, and this season demonstrates the madness in several ways, particularly looking at the most basic things in sports: the win-loss record and strength of competition.
In years when there is lots of chaos caused by few or no teams with unblemished records, the challenge becomes how do you rank teams that have lost games. But the first half of this season is comprised of something rather straightforward: There's an undefeated team in the Big 12, the SEC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10, the Mountain West (which has two), and the WAC. It's pretty simple. This is the absence of chaos; it's called order. These are the teams you talk about first, before looking at the bigger picture. And when you start actually looking at 2010's undefeated teams, I'd argue it becomes pretty clear that there are four teams that have distanced themselves from the pack. None of them, by the way, have the names of Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, or Boise State. Nope, the top tier of teams for the first half of the 2010 season are, in alphabetical order, Auburn, Michigan State, Missouri, and TCU.
In order to rank a team above those four, some other consideration has to come into play. And in order for that to be legitimate, that consideration has to be applied to all teams. That's the key point: consistency. The computers bring it in spades. The polls, well, sometimes I'm not sure what they're smokin'.
Here's how the BCS computers rank the top four teams:
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
Here's the Harris and USA Today polls:
1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Auburn
4. TCU
To demonstrate the overwhelming stranglehold of the humans over the BCS - even though all you'll hear in the media is pundits decrying the horrible choices of the computers - is to look at the combined rankings. Oregon and Boise State remain in the top 4.
And this leads us to the natural question: what consideration is being applied equally to reach this kind of disparity by teh humanz? The computers think the SEC leader should play the Big 12 leader for the national championship, with the Big Ten and Mountain West leaders being the runners up. The human polls don't put either Auburn or Missouri in the top 2, and they don't include Missouri or Michigan State in the top 4 at all!
Poll voters aren't just not biased against Boise State and Oregon. They're rabidly biased in favor of them, to the point of crowding out the real story lines of the first half of the season. In fact, there's such a drop-off after my top four teams, that the computers handle this in an interesting way. They put one-loss Oklahoma at number 5. And one-loss LSU ties Boise State for sixth, then Oregon at number 8.
Then there's the matter of one-loss teams. There's no way around the human stupidity of ranking Alabama so highly. None. When Missouri loses to Nebraska, then you can rank Alabama higher - but that loss hasn't happened yet! It's not just Missouri that's slighted by Alabama bias, though. Every one loss team suffers. You see, not only is Alabama not on some semi-pro uberwonderseason, but they haven't even put together the best first half of the season among one loss teams. Their loss at South Carolina is worse than Oklahoma's loss at Missouri, or Wisconsin's at Michigan State, or Ohio State's at Wisconsin, or Stanford's at Oregon, or Florida State's at Oklahoma, or LSU's at Auburn, or Oklahoma State's loss to Nebraska. In fact, what's remarkable about Alabama's loss compared to other top one-loss teams is how badly they got beat by a lesser team than the victors of all those other one-loss teams.
Oh, but it's the quality wins you say, not the losses? Ah, interesting. What teams have Oregon and Boise State beat again (this year) to warrant placing them ahead of Auburn, Missouri, Michigan State, and TCU? Uh-huh. And then when we look specifically at Alabama, they haven't beaten anybody with fewer than two losses. Wisconsin has beaten Ohio State. Nebraska has beaten Oklahoma State. Oklahoma has beaten Florida State. Heck, even Stanford's win over USC is as high a quality as any victory on Alabama's schedule so far.
The computers recognize this, too, and rank Alabama accordingly: at number 12. Alabama is a great team, one of the best in the country. They just don't belong in the Top Ten until they beat Auburn and LSU - which, as of now, they haven't done - and until Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wisconsin, and Ohio State lose more games - which, as of now, hasn't happened, either.
So if it's not being undefeated, and it's not the quality of wins, and it's not the quality of losses, how are pollsters making decisions? Is it the conference?
Well, TCU is in the only conference with two unbeaten teams, and other schools like Air Force and San Diego State are playing competitively, too. That's all the more reason to rank them ahead of Boise State. The Big 12, meanwhile, is putting on a conference finale for the ages. Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State are all quality programs. In the Embarrassment of the Season Bowl, Colorado beat Georgia. Heck, Baylor is bowl eligible, Texas is simply middle of the pack, and Kansas managed to beat Georgia Tech. In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look very solid. Oh yeah, Michigan has a guy who can make headlines. It's also interesting that Iowa is ranked so much more highly by humans than machines; why wouldn't the Big Ten love be going to Michigan State, first and foremost? And Illinois beat the same Penn State team Alabama did. In a bizarre twist, the SEC luster isn't rubbing off on the conference's undefeated team, or even the team it beat. Rather, it's the third best SEC performance of the first half, Alabama, hogging all the (human) headlines.
After all, we can't have preseason prognosticators bothered by how the season actually turns out. I mean, imagine if the World Series wasn't the Yanks and Phillies? How could Texas and San Francisco even be worth talking about?
Unfortunately, this post has to be this long, because it's absolutely necessary to point out the inherent contradiction which the humans can't shake: it simply can't be that Boise State and Oregon are having great years while it is also true that Alabama is having a great year. The second half of the season could very well play out differently, particularly with possible losses for Missouri at Nebraska, Michigan State at Iowa, Auburn at Alabama, and TCU/Utah. But as we mark the roughly halfway point through the season, it needs reminding in all the biased pundit hype that so far in the 2010 season, the computers are smarter than the pollsters. The problem with using coaches to rank these things is that coaches have a far more important demand on their time - coaching. There's no evil conspiracy here, just an unfortunate problem with relying so heavily on the human polls. Fortunately, there's a simple solution. Have the computer rankings account for half the score, rather than 1/3.
So, here's where I place things. I will re-arrange accordingly after my higher ranked teams actually lose and the lower ranked teams actually win. And remember, the computers will adjust, too. They have no pre-season prediction egos to feed. That's probably why the media blathers on about how horrible the machines are. Change is scary.
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
5. Oregon
6. Boise State
7. Utah
8. Oklahoma
9. Wisconsin
10. Ohio State
11. LSU
12. Alabama
13. Nebraska
14. Florida State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Stanford
17. Arizona
18. Mississippi State
19. Iowa
20. Baylor
21. South Carolina
22. Arkansas
23. Virginia Tech
24. Miami
25. San Diego State
But dang nabbit, something is in the water this fall. After a hot summer, this fall has been fantastic. Missouri's NFL franchises are 7-6. That's a winning record; better seasons for both teams have already been assured and we're less than half way through this season!
The Missouri Tigers have also won 7 games. Without losing any. To top it off, the Spartans are undefeated as well, while the media darlings of Alabama and Ohio State have both lost a game already.
And that's where this all comes to a head. The silly season of incoherent poll voters is in full swing. For all the incessant yacking and yammering about how awful the BCS is, the main problem is that the human polls account for twice as much weighting as the computers. (human) Pollsters that do things like looking at prior years instead of the current year. Or assign present values based upon what they believe will happen in the future instead of what has already happened up to this point. Or apply different criteria to different teams. It's truly bizarre, and this season demonstrates the madness in several ways, particularly looking at the most basic things in sports: the win-loss record and strength of competition.
In years when there is lots of chaos caused by few or no teams with unblemished records, the challenge becomes how do you rank teams that have lost games. But the first half of this season is comprised of something rather straightforward: There's an undefeated team in the Big 12, the SEC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10, the Mountain West (which has two), and the WAC. It's pretty simple. This is the absence of chaos; it's called order. These are the teams you talk about first, before looking at the bigger picture. And when you start actually looking at 2010's undefeated teams, I'd argue it becomes pretty clear that there are four teams that have distanced themselves from the pack. None of them, by the way, have the names of Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, or Boise State. Nope, the top tier of teams for the first half of the 2010 season are, in alphabetical order, Auburn, Michigan State, Missouri, and TCU.
In order to rank a team above those four, some other consideration has to come into play. And in order for that to be legitimate, that consideration has to be applied to all teams. That's the key point: consistency. The computers bring it in spades. The polls, well, sometimes I'm not sure what they're smokin'.
Here's how the BCS computers rank the top four teams:
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
Here's the Harris and USA Today polls:
1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Auburn
4. TCU
To demonstrate the overwhelming stranglehold of the humans over the BCS - even though all you'll hear in the media is pundits decrying the horrible choices of the computers - is to look at the combined rankings. Oregon and Boise State remain in the top 4.
And this leads us to the natural question: what consideration is being applied equally to reach this kind of disparity by teh humanz? The computers think the SEC leader should play the Big 12 leader for the national championship, with the Big Ten and Mountain West leaders being the runners up. The human polls don't put either Auburn or Missouri in the top 2, and they don't include Missouri or Michigan State in the top 4 at all!
Poll voters aren't just not biased against Boise State and Oregon. They're rabidly biased in favor of them, to the point of crowding out the real story lines of the first half of the season. In fact, there's such a drop-off after my top four teams, that the computers handle this in an interesting way. They put one-loss Oklahoma at number 5. And one-loss LSU ties Boise State for sixth, then Oregon at number 8.
Then there's the matter of one-loss teams. There's no way around the human stupidity of ranking Alabama so highly. None. When Missouri loses to Nebraska, then you can rank Alabama higher - but that loss hasn't happened yet! It's not just Missouri that's slighted by Alabama bias, though. Every one loss team suffers. You see, not only is Alabama not on some semi-pro uberwonderseason, but they haven't even put together the best first half of the season among one loss teams. Their loss at South Carolina is worse than Oklahoma's loss at Missouri, or Wisconsin's at Michigan State, or Ohio State's at Wisconsin, or Stanford's at Oregon, or Florida State's at Oklahoma, or LSU's at Auburn, or Oklahoma State's loss to Nebraska. In fact, what's remarkable about Alabama's loss compared to other top one-loss teams is how badly they got beat by a lesser team than the victors of all those other one-loss teams.
Oh, but it's the quality wins you say, not the losses? Ah, interesting. What teams have Oregon and Boise State beat again (this year) to warrant placing them ahead of Auburn, Missouri, Michigan State, and TCU? Uh-huh. And then when we look specifically at Alabama, they haven't beaten anybody with fewer than two losses. Wisconsin has beaten Ohio State. Nebraska has beaten Oklahoma State. Oklahoma has beaten Florida State. Heck, even Stanford's win over USC is as high a quality as any victory on Alabama's schedule so far.
The computers recognize this, too, and rank Alabama accordingly: at number 12. Alabama is a great team, one of the best in the country. They just don't belong in the Top Ten until they beat Auburn and LSU - which, as of now, they haven't done - and until Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wisconsin, and Ohio State lose more games - which, as of now, hasn't happened, either.
So if it's not being undefeated, and it's not the quality of wins, and it's not the quality of losses, how are pollsters making decisions? Is it the conference?
Well, TCU is in the only conference with two unbeaten teams, and other schools like Air Force and San Diego State are playing competitively, too. That's all the more reason to rank them ahead of Boise State. The Big 12, meanwhile, is putting on a conference finale for the ages. Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State are all quality programs. In the Embarrassment of the Season Bowl, Colorado beat Georgia. Heck, Baylor is bowl eligible, Texas is simply middle of the pack, and Kansas managed to beat Georgia Tech. In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look very solid. Oh yeah, Michigan has a guy who can make headlines. It's also interesting that Iowa is ranked so much more highly by humans than machines; why wouldn't the Big Ten love be going to Michigan State, first and foremost? And Illinois beat the same Penn State team Alabama did. In a bizarre twist, the SEC luster isn't rubbing off on the conference's undefeated team, or even the team it beat. Rather, it's the third best SEC performance of the first half, Alabama, hogging all the (human) headlines.
After all, we can't have preseason prognosticators bothered by how the season actually turns out. I mean, imagine if the World Series wasn't the Yanks and Phillies? How could Texas and San Francisco even be worth talking about?
Unfortunately, this post has to be this long, because it's absolutely necessary to point out the inherent contradiction which the humans can't shake: it simply can't be that Boise State and Oregon are having great years while it is also true that Alabama is having a great year. The second half of the season could very well play out differently, particularly with possible losses for Missouri at Nebraska, Michigan State at Iowa, Auburn at Alabama, and TCU/Utah. But as we mark the roughly halfway point through the season, it needs reminding in all the biased pundit hype that so far in the 2010 season, the computers are smarter than the pollsters. The problem with using coaches to rank these things is that coaches have a far more important demand on their time - coaching. There's no evil conspiracy here, just an unfortunate problem with relying so heavily on the human polls. Fortunately, there's a simple solution. Have the computer rankings account for half the score, rather than 1/3.
So, here's where I place things. I will re-arrange accordingly after my higher ranked teams actually lose and the lower ranked teams actually win. And remember, the computers will adjust, too. They have no pre-season prediction egos to feed. That's probably why the media blathers on about how horrible the machines are. Change is scary.
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
5. Oregon
6. Boise State
7. Utah
8. Oklahoma
9. Wisconsin
10. Ohio State
11. LSU
12. Alabama
13. Nebraska
14. Florida State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Stanford
17. Arizona
18. Mississippi State
19. Iowa
20. Baylor
21. South Carolina
22. Arkansas
23. Virginia Tech
24. Miami
25. San Diego State
3/28/2009
temporary bracket awesomeness
After some rough moments the first weekend, my NCAA bracket is momentarily looking in decent shape. I wanted to pull this screen shot from ESPN tourny challenge before things fall apart heading into the Final Four. Check it out.
And after a perfect 8 for 8, my Facebook bracket has become competitive again. With the right bit of luck, I might knock off Andy and Brian.
I find myself in an interesting fan position, too. I think it looks like there's a really good chance all four #1s make it again to the Final Four. Yet, I find myself rooting for all four of the other teams, Missouri and Michigan State on the left hand side and Oklahoma and Villanova on the right. Isn't March great! Every year, it brings spring, professional unpaid amateur sports, and of course, the last day of the month.
And after a perfect 8 for 8, my Facebook bracket has become competitive again. With the right bit of luck, I might knock off Andy and Brian.
I find myself in an interesting fan position, too. I think it looks like there's a really good chance all four #1s make it again to the Final Four. Yet, I find myself rooting for all four of the other teams, Missouri and Michigan State on the left hand side and Oklahoma and Villanova on the right. Isn't March great! Every year, it brings spring, professional unpaid amateur sports, and of course, the last day of the month.
10/12/2008
week 7 rankings
Well, Missouri won't have a perfect season.
Of course, the good news is that's apparent after game 6 instead of game 1. They had a game to lose; it just would have been wiser to save that for Texas next week. The real irony is that by losing, Missouri actually makes the Big 12 conference by far the best conference in the country. In essence, the Tigers created another top team. It's just unfortunate that MU had to lose in order for Oklahoma State to get some recognition.
I've got some teams this week that are kind of just waiting for them to play each other. I think Oklahoma and USC, for example, are better than Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. But I'm not ranking them higher until Oklahoma State and Texas Tech actually lose a game (which I think will happen in two weeks for both of them). I think Georgia is notably better than Vanderbilt, but they both come in 5-1. If Georgia wins, I'll move them up a fair amount. But I think for a week at least, they don't belong in the top ten. Kansas and Vanderbilt are probably more wishful thinking than great teams, and will likely each pick up their second losses next week. But it's not next week yet. Another place where I seem to differ from the national pundits is with the Big East. It's not great this year, but there are four one-loss teams, and West Virginia's got to be one of the best two loss teams out there. That Auburn-West Virginia game should be pretty interesting.
I continue to think BYU and Utah are overrated. They'd be .500 ball clubs in the Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Big Ten, and more empirically, they just don't have any quality wins. Michigan and UCLA are both losing programs. But the schedules are better than Ball State, so I'm willing to keep ranking them as long as they stay undefeated. In a sense, I look at LSU the same way; without a strong schedule so far, getting that first loss drops them significantly in my book.
1 B-12 Texas
2 B-Ten Penn State
3 SEC Alabama
4 B-12 Oklahoma State
5 B-12 Texas Tech
6 B-12 Oklahoma
7 B-12 Missouri
8 ACC Virginia Tech
9 SEC Florida
10 P-10 USC
11 B-Ten Ohio State
12 B-E South Florida
13 B-12 Kansas
14 ACC Wake Forest
15 SEC Vanderbilt
16 SEC Georgia
17 ACC Florida State
18 MW Utah
19 MW BYU
20 SEC LSU
21 ACC North Carolina
22 P-10 California
23 B-Ten Michigan State
24 B-E Connecticut
25 B-E Pittsburgh
Of course, the good news is that's apparent after game 6 instead of game 1. They had a game to lose; it just would have been wiser to save that for Texas next week. The real irony is that by losing, Missouri actually makes the Big 12 conference by far the best conference in the country. In essence, the Tigers created another top team. It's just unfortunate that MU had to lose in order for Oklahoma State to get some recognition.
I've got some teams this week that are kind of just waiting for them to play each other. I think Oklahoma and USC, for example, are better than Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. But I'm not ranking them higher until Oklahoma State and Texas Tech actually lose a game (which I think will happen in two weeks for both of them). I think Georgia is notably better than Vanderbilt, but they both come in 5-1. If Georgia wins, I'll move them up a fair amount. But I think for a week at least, they don't belong in the top ten. Kansas and Vanderbilt are probably more wishful thinking than great teams, and will likely each pick up their second losses next week. But it's not next week yet. Another place where I seem to differ from the national pundits is with the Big East. It's not great this year, but there are four one-loss teams, and West Virginia's got to be one of the best two loss teams out there. That Auburn-West Virginia game should be pretty interesting.
I continue to think BYU and Utah are overrated. They'd be .500 ball clubs in the Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Big Ten, and more empirically, they just don't have any quality wins. Michigan and UCLA are both losing programs. But the schedules are better than Ball State, so I'm willing to keep ranking them as long as they stay undefeated. In a sense, I look at LSU the same way; without a strong schedule so far, getting that first loss drops them significantly in my book.
1 B-12 Texas
2 B-Ten Penn State
3 SEC Alabama
4 B-12 Oklahoma State
5 B-12 Texas Tech
6 B-12 Oklahoma
7 B-12 Missouri
8 ACC Virginia Tech
9 SEC Florida
10 P-10 USC
11 B-Ten Ohio State
12 B-E South Florida
13 B-12 Kansas
14 ACC Wake Forest
15 SEC Vanderbilt
16 SEC Georgia
17 ACC Florida State
18 MW Utah
19 MW BYU
20 SEC LSU
21 ACC North Carolina
22 P-10 California
23 B-Ten Michigan State
24 B-E Connecticut
25 B-E Pittsburgh
3/23/2008
happy easter
Among other things, Easter is a good time to put things in perspective. A time to think about cleansing and newness. A time to distinguish small things from the big picture.
It was with this mindset that I started doing a little reading this afternoon, and the first article I ran across was from the Boston Globe about credit problems. It's a good, straightforward article highlighting various issues people are running into. In fact, it's noticeable for being so straightforward it's almost cliched. The same story could have been written months ago, or months from now, in any paper in the country.
We all know the language by now. We're in a 'credit crunch', a 'subprime crisis'. Lending standards are being 'tightened'. During the 'housing boom', lenders 'relaxed their standards'. Some of the more sarcastic reference a 'subcrime' crisis. Even the title of the article is interesting in how we are supposed to have a conditioned response to it, 'Qualified borrowers face credit squeeze'. The problem, we are told ad nauseum, is that qualified people can't get credit. There's just no money out there.
Now, it's good that the financial press and corporate media generally are talking about this issue. That's much better than ignoring the problem.
But after so many months of stories like these, the complete picture still isn't being told. The problem at its core isn't that there's a shortage of money; there's lots of liquidity for things that have value. Visa just had one of the largest IPOs in history. Corporations are sitting on something like $1.6 trillion in cash and $2 or $3 trillion more in short-term cash equivalents. As savings rates for average households were declining, corporate savings rates were hitting all time highs.
No, the key in that Boston Globe headline is not 'credit crunch'. It's 'qualified'. The obstacle we face, that we have been facing for many years, is a dearth of qualified borrowers. The 'housing bubble' was created precisely by lenders who gave money to people who can't afford what they're buying. Some specific policies related to interest rates and deregulation and so forth heightened the problem and explain the timing, and likely there was some criminal malfeasance involved as well as the usual predatory lending, too, but there's more to it than just that.
All the fancy technical analysis and long-winded answers and financial jargon can certainly serve as a useful distraction for particular actors that may have engaged in outright fraud or otherwise broken the law and may find themselves testifying before Congress, or other actors writing a book to explain why it's not their fault, but we are a very rich country. To become a crisis where people are literally being kicked out of their homes, it takes something more fundamental.
The fundamental question is this. Should someone willing to work full-time be able to comfortably afford decent housing? [And related to that, particularly in our tax code, do we place value on owning that residence?] Savings are low, people live paycheck to paycheck, and ultimately, people default on their mortgages, because the job they're in doesn't pay enough to afford their home. Wages, not credit, explain our current difficulties. The rest just makes the scale of the crisis more profound.
Now that's a question I would love to see headlining CNN this evening. I would love to see people talk about why we have people without homes, construction workers without jobs, and corporations with nothing to spend money on. There's no one right answer. But the first step is talking about the whole picture.
At least, after basketball. Gotta keep my facebook standing.
It was with this mindset that I started doing a little reading this afternoon, and the first article I ran across was from the Boston Globe about credit problems. It's a good, straightforward article highlighting various issues people are running into. In fact, it's noticeable for being so straightforward it's almost cliched. The same story could have been written months ago, or months from now, in any paper in the country.
We all know the language by now. We're in a 'credit crunch', a 'subprime crisis'. Lending standards are being 'tightened'. During the 'housing boom', lenders 'relaxed their standards'. Some of the more sarcastic reference a 'subcrime' crisis. Even the title of the article is interesting in how we are supposed to have a conditioned response to it, 'Qualified borrowers face credit squeeze'. The problem, we are told ad nauseum, is that qualified people can't get credit. There's just no money out there.
Now, it's good that the financial press and corporate media generally are talking about this issue. That's much better than ignoring the problem.
But after so many months of stories like these, the complete picture still isn't being told. The problem at its core isn't that there's a shortage of money; there's lots of liquidity for things that have value. Visa just had one of the largest IPOs in history. Corporations are sitting on something like $1.6 trillion in cash and $2 or $3 trillion more in short-term cash equivalents. As savings rates for average households were declining, corporate savings rates were hitting all time highs.
No, the key in that Boston Globe headline is not 'credit crunch'. It's 'qualified'. The obstacle we face, that we have been facing for many years, is a dearth of qualified borrowers. The 'housing bubble' was created precisely by lenders who gave money to people who can't afford what they're buying. Some specific policies related to interest rates and deregulation and so forth heightened the problem and explain the timing, and likely there was some criminal malfeasance involved as well as the usual predatory lending, too, but there's more to it than just that.
All the fancy technical analysis and long-winded answers and financial jargon can certainly serve as a useful distraction for particular actors that may have engaged in outright fraud or otherwise broken the law and may find themselves testifying before Congress, or other actors writing a book to explain why it's not their fault, but we are a very rich country. To become a crisis where people are literally being kicked out of their homes, it takes something more fundamental.
The fundamental question is this. Should someone willing to work full-time be able to comfortably afford decent housing? [And related to that, particularly in our tax code, do we place value on owning that residence?] Savings are low, people live paycheck to paycheck, and ultimately, people default on their mortgages, because the job they're in doesn't pay enough to afford their home. Wages, not credit, explain our current difficulties. The rest just makes the scale of the crisis more profound.
Now that's a question I would love to see headlining CNN this evening. I would love to see people talk about why we have people without homes, construction workers without jobs, and corporations with nothing to spend money on. There's no one right answer. But the first step is talking about the whole picture.
At least, after basketball. Gotta keep my facebook standing.
1/08/2008
time for another election
This pains me deeply to say. I almost can't bear it. But here goes.
The political coverage about New Hampshire is actually better than the sports coverage found in the AP and USA Today Polls.
I find myself wanting to strangle somebody. And not because of some new scandal in the Bush Administration.
There are some legitimate points of debate. How to rank BYU, for example, is tough, since they beat a lot of teams with winning records, but they were all midmajor conferences. There's no signature win. Ditto for Hawaii, with the problem that Hawaii has quite the signature loss.
But some are just stupid. It's like, which is worse; that voters were ignorant and they just didn't care, or that they are so enamored with certain teams they willfully overlook pesky things like wins and losses? How in the world do you rank Florida ahead of Michigan (and Auburn in one of the polls)? It makes a good little Baptist boy want to swear hard enough to make Mel Gibson and Michael Richards blush. And speaking of Auburn, really? Ahead of two 10-3 teams!?!
I have an APB out for South Florida. Let's see, all they did was beat West Virginia. Oh, and somehow they beat a team from the superhuman ego conference, too. One that goes by the name of Auburn, who somehow got a 14 and a 15. Hmm, nothing to see here folks, move along. The SEC is all-powerful. They don't lose to anybody, even if the score board has some kind of malfunction and shows them having fewer points.
Now we get on to the really fun stuff, both because these are the best teams and because I personally care more. It's one thing for a team like Florida to be ranked above the team they lost to in the bowl game, or for a team like 9-4 Auburn to be ranked ahead of 10-3 teams Cincinnati and Arizona State. I don't follow any of those teams closely. But when teams I do follow more closely get disrespected, or more accurately this year, simply ignored, it makes me quite animated. Looking at how the voters decided the top ten, I really think the most rational response is to just ignore the polls. They must have used some alien formula more secret than FICO scoring. And it must have about as much precedent as the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore.
So let's break this down. I think the most helpful way to analyze this is to remove the school names. You then see quite plainly that many voters made decisions based not on the performance of the teams on the field this year but rather on performances in prior years or biases about certain programs or conferences. First, here's what the two polls have after the season ended.
Without the schools, here's what the AP did:
1. 12-2
2. 11-2
3. 11-2
4. 12-2
5. 11-2
6. 11-2
7. 12-1
8. 11-3
9. 11-3
10.10-3
That makes no sense. Absolutely none. So, let's try this method. Here are the number of wins the team had against another top ten opponent (bigger is better).
1. 2
2. 0
3. 0
4. 1
5. 0
6. 1
7. 1
8. 3
9. 0
10.0
I repeat myself, that makes no sense. So, let's try the reverse. These are the number of losses to teams not in the top ten (smaller is better).
1. 2
2. 2
3. 2
4. 0
5. 1
6. 2
7. 0
8. 2
9. 1
10.2
Well, you know the drill. So, let's try the number of teams they beat which beat a top ten team (bigger is better).
1. 0
2. 1
3. 1
4. 7
5. 0
6. 1
7. 3
8. 2
9. 1
10.1
Now let's look at another number where smaller is better, the number of losses to teams with fewer than 10 wins.
1. 2
2. 1
3. 2
4. 0
5. 1
6. 2
7. 0
8. 2
9. 0
10.2
Again, very interesting. Is there any number that makes sense? I haven't found it yet if there is. Maybe the answer is that the teams rated highly won their conference (or division of conference).
1. conf champ
2. none
3. conf champ
4. div champ
5. conf champ
6. conf champ
7. none
8. conf champ
9. conf champ
10.none
Hmmm, guess not. So let's put this together in the form of [wins-losses], [top ten wins-losses to teams not in top ten], [wins against teams with a top ten win-losses to teams with fewer than 10 wins], [conference position]. The AP voters say:
1. 12-2, 2-2, 0-2, conf champ
2. 11-2, 0-2, 1-1, none
3. 11-2, 0-2, 1-2, conf champ
4. 12-2, 1-0, 7-0, div champ
5. 11-2, 0-1, 0-1, conf champ
6. 11-2, 1-2, 1-2, conf champ
7. 12-1, 1-0, 3-0, none
8. 11-3, 3-2, 2-2, conf champ
9. 11-3, 0-1, 1-0, conf champ
10.10-3, 0-2, 1-2, none
Here's how I rank them (note, this sets aside the rule that the winner of the national championship is the automatic number one).
1. 12-2, 1-0, 7-0, div champ
2. 12-1, 1-0, 3-0, none
3. 12-2, 2-2, 0-2, conf champ
4. 11-2, 1-2, 1-2, conf champ
5. 11-2, 0-2, 1-1, none
6. 11-2, 0-2, 1-2, conf champ
7. 11-2, 0-1, 0-1, conf champ
8. 11-3, 3-2, 2-2, conf champ
9. 11-3, 0-1, 1-0, conf champ
10.10-3, 0-2, 1-2, none
This completes the more objective analysis of the day. I am quite eager to turn into a fan and really argue this case. Let's put some names on those numbers.
1. Missouri
2. Kansas
3. LSU
4. West Virginia
5. Georgia
6. USC
7. Ohio State
8. Oklahoma
9. Virginia Tech
10. Texas (although, this is really Boston College for me; I vote Texas 11 and BC 10)
When you look at the 2007-2008 college football season, I am quite convinced that the national championship game was not played in New Orleans between LSU and Ohio State, but rather in Kansas City between Missouri and Kansas. They have quality wins and they avoided bad losses. In a season where the top teams are all very close, that combo is very important. The worst team that the Big 12 combo of MU/KU lost to was...Oklahoma; they had not a single loss to a team outside the top ten. That is almost unbelievable. Only three of the top ten teams won 12 games, yet only one of them was ranked in the top three. Kansas only lost one game all season, while Missouri beat seven teams who were good enough to themselves beat a top ten team, more than LSU (0), Georgia (1), and USC (1) combined! The teams Missouri beat were themselves responsible for beating the SEC Champion, the ACC Champion, the Big 12 Champion, and the Big Ten Champion. That is a monstrous season.
Let's move on to Georgia. What would be required of teams like Missouri, Kansas, and West Virginia to get voted ahead of Georgia? All three had more wins against top ten teams than Georgia even played! Missouri, unlike Georgia, won its division, not to mention winning more games. Georgia's schedule was as soft as Kansas' was; Kansas came out with a better record. West Virginia won the Big East, having the same record as Georgia. Basically, the AP voters are saying a team would have to go undefeated to be better than a two loss Georgia team whose best win of the entire season was against a four loss team and whose worst loss was to a team that didn't even play in a bowl game. The two teams Georgia lost to had a combined 10 losses. The three teams that Missouri and Kansas lost to (together) had total combined losses of eight games. Just think about that. Georgia's rank is so ridiculous you can't even argue with it. You just laugh at the voters and give them zero credibility.
Then there's USC. At least they won their conference. Their main problem, however, is that they have a bad loss. A very bad one. USC lost at home to a team that finished the season 4-8. Stanford's victory over USC ranks not just among the season's all-time upsets, but among the greatest upsets in the history of college football. Now, if the Pac 10 had been a strong conference this year, that might be forgivable, if USC had some great wins. They don't have any, though. Their only win against a team with 10 or more wins was against Arizona State, which was manhandled by the Big 12's fourth team, Texas. Their second best win was against Illinois, which, oh, Missouri also beat, in a location a lot closer to Champaign than the Rose Bowl. Like Georgia, USC didn't even play a top ten team!
It's also important to understand that, aside from ranking either team highly, ranking both USC and Georgia highly is only consistent if the criteria is the national recognition of the program. In other words, it has nothing to do with this football season. You can't claim the SEC is a great conference to vote for Georgia #2, then vote a team from a weak conference #3. You can't vote USC #3 because winning conference championships are important, then vote for a #2 team that didn't even win their division, let alone their conference. You can't talk about how good the conference is when the teams you are talking about (like Florida and Arizona State) lose bowl games against teams ranked lower than them, while other teams get blown out by a higher ranked team (think Arkansas).
So my #1 choice is finally ranked at #4. But that still leaves me upset about Kansas and West Virginia.
How Ohio State is ranked #5 is a mystery beyond mysteries. It's so bizarre. Either they should be ranked higher for winning a conference, or they should be ranked lower for not being a very good team. Unlike Georgia and USC, Ohio State did play a top ten team. They lost, though. Overall, I think their season was a little better than USC, but since USC won its bowl and the team it beat was responsible for Ohio State's other loss, then I think USC should probably be a notch higher than Ohio State. How the AP voters rank them higher than Kansas and West Virginia, though, is probably classified above top secret.
Interestingly, once we make it down to the 8, 9, and 10 slots, I have no quarrel with the AP.
So join me in recognizing the Missouri Tigers as your national champions. Or at least join me in mocking the voters.
And I don't mean the New Hampshire ones.
One final update, here's the bowl predictions I made by conference vs the actual result.
Prediction/Actual: difference
Big 12: 5-3/5-3: exact
Pac 10: 4-2/4-2: exact
SEC: 5-4/7-2: two off
ACC: 4-4/2-6: two off
Big East: 2-3/3-2: one off
Big Ten: 4-4/3-5: one off
The political coverage about New Hampshire is actually better than the sports coverage found in the AP and USA Today Polls.
I find myself wanting to strangle somebody. And not because of some new scandal in the Bush Administration.
There are some legitimate points of debate. How to rank BYU, for example, is tough, since they beat a lot of teams with winning records, but they were all midmajor conferences. There's no signature win. Ditto for Hawaii, with the problem that Hawaii has quite the signature loss.
But some are just stupid. It's like, which is worse; that voters were ignorant and they just didn't care, or that they are so enamored with certain teams they willfully overlook pesky things like wins and losses? How in the world do you rank Florida ahead of Michigan (and Auburn in one of the polls)? It makes a good little Baptist boy want to swear hard enough to make Mel Gibson and Michael Richards blush. And speaking of Auburn, really? Ahead of two 10-3 teams!?!
I have an APB out for South Florida. Let's see, all they did was beat West Virginia. Oh, and somehow they beat a team from the superhuman ego conference, too. One that goes by the name of Auburn, who somehow got a 14 and a 15. Hmm, nothing to see here folks, move along. The SEC is all-powerful. They don't lose to anybody, even if the score board has some kind of malfunction and shows them having fewer points.
Now we get on to the really fun stuff, both because these are the best teams and because I personally care more. It's one thing for a team like Florida to be ranked above the team they lost to in the bowl game, or for a team like 9-4 Auburn to be ranked ahead of 10-3 teams Cincinnati and Arizona State. I don't follow any of those teams closely. But when teams I do follow more closely get disrespected, or more accurately this year, simply ignored, it makes me quite animated. Looking at how the voters decided the top ten, I really think the most rational response is to just ignore the polls. They must have used some alien formula more secret than FICO scoring. And it must have about as much precedent as the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore.
So let's break this down. I think the most helpful way to analyze this is to remove the school names. You then see quite plainly that many voters made decisions based not on the performance of the teams on the field this year but rather on performances in prior years or biases about certain programs or conferences. First, here's what the two polls have after the season ended.
Without the schools, here's what the AP did:
1. 12-2
2. 11-2
3. 11-2
4. 12-2
5. 11-2
6. 11-2
7. 12-1
8. 11-3
9. 11-3
10.10-3
That makes no sense. Absolutely none. So, let's try this method. Here are the number of wins the team had against another top ten opponent (bigger is better).
1. 2
2. 0
3. 0
4. 1
5. 0
6. 1
7. 1
8. 3
9. 0
10.0
I repeat myself, that makes no sense. So, let's try the reverse. These are the number of losses to teams not in the top ten (smaller is better).
1. 2
2. 2
3. 2
4. 0
5. 1
6. 2
7. 0
8. 2
9. 1
10.2
Well, you know the drill. So, let's try the number of teams they beat which beat a top ten team (bigger is better).
1. 0
2. 1
3. 1
4. 7
5. 0
6. 1
7. 3
8. 2
9. 1
10.1
Now let's look at another number where smaller is better, the number of losses to teams with fewer than 10 wins.
1. 2
2. 1
3. 2
4. 0
5. 1
6. 2
7. 0
8. 2
9. 0
10.2
Again, very interesting. Is there any number that makes sense? I haven't found it yet if there is. Maybe the answer is that the teams rated highly won their conference (or division of conference).
1. conf champ
2. none
3. conf champ
4. div champ
5. conf champ
6. conf champ
7. none
8. conf champ
9. conf champ
10.none
Hmmm, guess not. So let's put this together in the form of [wins-losses], [top ten wins-losses to teams not in top ten], [wins against teams with a top ten win-losses to teams with fewer than 10 wins], [conference position]. The AP voters say:
1. 12-2, 2-2, 0-2, conf champ
2. 11-2, 0-2, 1-1, none
3. 11-2, 0-2, 1-2, conf champ
4. 12-2, 1-0, 7-0, div champ
5. 11-2, 0-1, 0-1, conf champ
6. 11-2, 1-2, 1-2, conf champ
7. 12-1, 1-0, 3-0, none
8. 11-3, 3-2, 2-2, conf champ
9. 11-3, 0-1, 1-0, conf champ
10.10-3, 0-2, 1-2, none
Here's how I rank them (note, this sets aside the rule that the winner of the national championship is the automatic number one).
1. 12-2, 1-0, 7-0, div champ
2. 12-1, 1-0, 3-0, none
3. 12-2, 2-2, 0-2, conf champ
4. 11-2, 1-2, 1-2, conf champ
5. 11-2, 0-2, 1-1, none
6. 11-2, 0-2, 1-2, conf champ
7. 11-2, 0-1, 0-1, conf champ
8. 11-3, 3-2, 2-2, conf champ
9. 11-3, 0-1, 1-0, conf champ
10.10-3, 0-2, 1-2, none
This completes the more objective analysis of the day. I am quite eager to turn into a fan and really argue this case. Let's put some names on those numbers.
1. Missouri
2. Kansas
3. LSU
4. West Virginia
5. Georgia
6. USC
7. Ohio State
8. Oklahoma
9. Virginia Tech
10. Texas (although, this is really Boston College for me; I vote Texas 11 and BC 10)
When you look at the 2007-2008 college football season, I am quite convinced that the national championship game was not played in New Orleans between LSU and Ohio State, but rather in Kansas City between Missouri and Kansas. They have quality wins and they avoided bad losses. In a season where the top teams are all very close, that combo is very important. The worst team that the Big 12 combo of MU/KU lost to was...Oklahoma; they had not a single loss to a team outside the top ten. That is almost unbelievable. Only three of the top ten teams won 12 games, yet only one of them was ranked in the top three. Kansas only lost one game all season, while Missouri beat seven teams who were good enough to themselves beat a top ten team, more than LSU (0), Georgia (1), and USC (1) combined! The teams Missouri beat were themselves responsible for beating the SEC Champion, the ACC Champion, the Big 12 Champion, and the Big Ten Champion. That is a monstrous season.
Let's move on to Georgia. What would be required of teams like Missouri, Kansas, and West Virginia to get voted ahead of Georgia? All three had more wins against top ten teams than Georgia even played! Missouri, unlike Georgia, won its division, not to mention winning more games. Georgia's schedule was as soft as Kansas' was; Kansas came out with a better record. West Virginia won the Big East, having the same record as Georgia. Basically, the AP voters are saying a team would have to go undefeated to be better than a two loss Georgia team whose best win of the entire season was against a four loss team and whose worst loss was to a team that didn't even play in a bowl game. The two teams Georgia lost to had a combined 10 losses. The three teams that Missouri and Kansas lost to (together) had total combined losses of eight games. Just think about that. Georgia's rank is so ridiculous you can't even argue with it. You just laugh at the voters and give them zero credibility.
Then there's USC. At least they won their conference. Their main problem, however, is that they have a bad loss. A very bad one. USC lost at home to a team that finished the season 4-8. Stanford's victory over USC ranks not just among the season's all-time upsets, but among the greatest upsets in the history of college football. Now, if the Pac 10 had been a strong conference this year, that might be forgivable, if USC had some great wins. They don't have any, though. Their only win against a team with 10 or more wins was against Arizona State, which was manhandled by the Big 12's fourth team, Texas. Their second best win was against Illinois, which, oh, Missouri also beat, in a location a lot closer to Champaign than the Rose Bowl. Like Georgia, USC didn't even play a top ten team!
It's also important to understand that, aside from ranking either team highly, ranking both USC and Georgia highly is only consistent if the criteria is the national recognition of the program. In other words, it has nothing to do with this football season. You can't claim the SEC is a great conference to vote for Georgia #2, then vote a team from a weak conference #3. You can't vote USC #3 because winning conference championships are important, then vote for a #2 team that didn't even win their division, let alone their conference. You can't talk about how good the conference is when the teams you are talking about (like Florida and Arizona State) lose bowl games against teams ranked lower than them, while other teams get blown out by a higher ranked team (think Arkansas).
So my #1 choice is finally ranked at #4. But that still leaves me upset about Kansas and West Virginia.
How Ohio State is ranked #5 is a mystery beyond mysteries. It's so bizarre. Either they should be ranked higher for winning a conference, or they should be ranked lower for not being a very good team. Unlike Georgia and USC, Ohio State did play a top ten team. They lost, though. Overall, I think their season was a little better than USC, but since USC won its bowl and the team it beat was responsible for Ohio State's other loss, then I think USC should probably be a notch higher than Ohio State. How the AP voters rank them higher than Kansas and West Virginia, though, is probably classified above top secret.
Interestingly, once we make it down to the 8, 9, and 10 slots, I have no quarrel with the AP.
So join me in recognizing the Missouri Tigers as your national champions. Or at least join me in mocking the voters.
And I don't mean the New Hampshire ones.
One final update, here's the bowl predictions I made by conference vs the actual result.
Prediction/Actual: difference
Big 12: 5-3/5-3: exact
Pac 10: 4-2/4-2: exact
SEC: 5-4/7-2: two off
ACC: 4-4/2-6: two off
Big East: 2-3/3-2: one off
Big Ten: 4-4/3-5: one off
1/06/2008
time to rant
(R) This has no in-depth analysis. Nothing's changed in college football in the last 24 hours.
I just saw something on ESPN that really encapsulates the absurdity of the season. Look at the articles written about the four BCS bowls played so far.
In the Orange Bowl, Virigina Tech, #1 in the computer ranking, is matched up against Kansas, a team with a better record than both USC and Georgia. That apparently warrants three articles, with headlines like, "Kansas Proved it Belonged". Meanwhile, the Fiesta Bowl had the most anticipated game, the only match-up between two conference champions. It is just as worthy of the national championship as Ohio State/LSU. That naturally is worth four articles.
However, the Sugar Bowl, where Georgia played a team whose best victory was against Boise State, somehow warranted seven articles. And the Rose Bowl, the most pathetic excuse of a BCS game in perhaps the history of the BCS, an embarrassment to any claim the Rose Bowl has to national implications, was somehow deserving of nine articles. The top one is titled, "USC looks like nation's best team". Wow, they beat a top 25 team in what was essentially a home game. That's, like, an automatic national title, isn't it? You'd think the coach of the year was at Georgia or USC with this kind of coverage. You'd certainly be forgiven for thinking Georgia and USC have the best records in college football, or that they've beaten the best teams this season, or that they haven't lost to any bad teams. Of course, you'd also be wrong. Georgia, like Kansas, didn't even win its division. USC lost to Stanford, an even worse loss than West Virginia's loss to Pitt.
Sports coverage is usually quite good, at least, in comparison to things like political coverage. But these guys should be embarrassed. Or they should just admit that they're not covering college football. Rather, they're partisans with a particular interest in certain schools. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, fans are what make sports great. Just be honest about whether you're writing as a fan or an analyst. If writing as a fan, then give equal space for fans from other schools to make their case. If writing as an analyst, include all teams in your discussion. It's not like Missouri or Kansas or Oklahoma or West Virginia or Virginia Tech are clearly superior to USC and Georgia. Rather, it's that they're obviously equal to them, deserving mention in any objective analysis about the best teams this season or the best bowl games or anything else.
I just saw something on ESPN that really encapsulates the absurdity of the season. Look at the articles written about the four BCS bowls played so far.
In the Orange Bowl, Virigina Tech, #1 in the computer ranking, is matched up against Kansas, a team with a better record than both USC and Georgia. That apparently warrants three articles, with headlines like, "Kansas Proved it Belonged". Meanwhile, the Fiesta Bowl had the most anticipated game, the only match-up between two conference champions. It is just as worthy of the national championship as Ohio State/LSU. That naturally is worth four articles.
However, the Sugar Bowl, where Georgia played a team whose best victory was against Boise State, somehow warranted seven articles. And the Rose Bowl, the most pathetic excuse of a BCS game in perhaps the history of the BCS, an embarrassment to any claim the Rose Bowl has to national implications, was somehow deserving of nine articles. The top one is titled, "USC looks like nation's best team". Wow, they beat a top 25 team in what was essentially a home game. That's, like, an automatic national title, isn't it? You'd think the coach of the year was at Georgia or USC with this kind of coverage. You'd certainly be forgiven for thinking Georgia and USC have the best records in college football, or that they've beaten the best teams this season, or that they haven't lost to any bad teams. Of course, you'd also be wrong. Georgia, like Kansas, didn't even win its division. USC lost to Stanford, an even worse loss than West Virginia's loss to Pitt.
Sports coverage is usually quite good, at least, in comparison to things like political coverage. But these guys should be embarrassed. Or they should just admit that they're not covering college football. Rather, they're partisans with a particular interest in certain schools. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, fans are what make sports great. Just be honest about whether you're writing as a fan or an analyst. If writing as a fan, then give equal space for fans from other schools to make their case. If writing as an analyst, include all teams in your discussion. It's not like Missouri or Kansas or Oklahoma or West Virginia or Virginia Tech are clearly superior to USC and Georgia. Rather, it's that they're obviously equal to them, deserving mention in any objective analysis about the best teams this season or the best bowl games or anything else.
1/05/2008
time to rank 11-25
Since there are about 8 national champions this year, I'll wait until next week to rank the top teams. But for now, this is what my rankings 11 through 25 look like for the end of the 2007-2008 season. Being me, I naturally made a little spreadsheet with some helpful things like records and who I think their best wins and worst losses were against. I really don't know what to do with Hawaii, since I feel like some mention is deserved by a 12-1 record, but they really didn't beat anybody this year. So I gave them #25.
#) Team Record Conference
Best 2 Wins - Worst 2 losses
11) Texas 10-3 Big 12
Texas Tech/Arizona State - K State/Texas A&M
12) Tennessee 10-4 SEC
Georgia/Wisconsin - California/Alabama
13) Arizona State 10-3 Pac 10
Oregon State/Colorado - Oregon/Texas
14) Cincinnati 10-3 Big East
Oregon State/Uconn - Louisville/Pittsburgh
15) Texas Tech 9-4 Big 12
Oklahoma/Virginia - Colorado/Oklahoma State
16) Oregon 9-4 Pac 10
USC/Arizona State - California/Arizona
17) Michigan 9-4 Big Ten
Illinois/Florida - App State/Wisconsin
18) Illinois 9-4 Big Ten
Ohio State/Wisconsin - Iowa/Michigan
19) South Florida 9-4 Big East
West Virginia/Auburn - Rutgers/Uconn
20) Auburn 9-4 SEC
Florida/Clemson - South Florida/Mississippi St
21) Florida 9-4 SEC
Tennessee/Kentucky - Auburn/Michigan
22) Penn State 9-4 Big Ten
Wisconsin/Texas A&M - Michigan/Michigan State
23) Wisconsin 9-4 Big Ten
Michigan/Michigan State - Illinois/Penn State
24) Virginia 9-4 ACC
Uconn/Wake Forest - Wyoming/NC State
25) Hawaii 12-1 WAC
Boise State/Fresno State - Georgia/NONE
#) Team Record Conference
Best 2 Wins - Worst 2 losses
11) Texas 10-3 Big 12
Texas Tech/Arizona State - K State/Texas A&M
12) Tennessee 10-4 SEC
Georgia/Wisconsin - California/Alabama
13) Arizona State 10-3 Pac 10
Oregon State/Colorado - Oregon/Texas
14) Cincinnati 10-3 Big East
Oregon State/Uconn - Louisville/Pittsburgh
15) Texas Tech 9-4 Big 12
Oklahoma/Virginia - Colorado/Oklahoma State
16) Oregon 9-4 Pac 10
USC/Arizona State - California/Arizona
17) Michigan 9-4 Big Ten
Illinois/Florida - App State/Wisconsin
18) Illinois 9-4 Big Ten
Ohio State/Wisconsin - Iowa/Michigan
19) South Florida 9-4 Big East
West Virginia/Auburn - Rutgers/Uconn
20) Auburn 9-4 SEC
Florida/Clemson - South Florida/Mississippi St
21) Florida 9-4 SEC
Tennessee/Kentucky - Auburn/Michigan
22) Penn State 9-4 Big Ten
Wisconsin/Texas A&M - Michigan/Michigan State
23) Wisconsin 9-4 Big Ten
Michigan/Michigan State - Illinois/Penn State
24) Virginia 9-4 ACC
Uconn/Wake Forest - Wyoming/NC State
25) Hawaii 12-1 WAC
Boise State/Fresno State - Georgia/NONE
1/03/2008
what we know so far
There are three Democratic candidates with substantial support in the party. Oh wait, we've known that for months. On to the important stuff...the free labor employed by the 'nonprofit' NCAA.
What we know about college football is that there were two good conferences and a whole bunch of mediocre ones this year. We also know the reason the BCS system doesn't work isn't because it destroys all the old, traditional match-ups or because it's impossible to rank teams nationally. The problem is it tries to do both. So, instead of having set games each year (for example, say, always having the SEC champ play the ACC champ, Big 12/Big East, and Pac 10/Big 10) or instead of matching the top teams against each other (1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc), it does this incredibly awkward combo move that really is a just the same old same old. When the pundits decide that Georgia is playing great football, or that it doesn't matter that USC lost to Stanford, well, we're just supposed to accept that.
New Year's Day illustrated the absurdity quite plainly. Missouri, USC, and Georgia are three of the best teams in the country. Exactly where to rank them is a fun task I'll get to later, but the immediate problem the BCS has is none of them played each other! Instead, they all played teams they should beat, and guess what, they all beat them. In the first quarter. 35 to 34, to be exact. That's 35 first quarter points vs 34 total game points. Just process that for a second. All three teams won their games by more than 30 points.
No one wins from that system. It makes the games less exciting and doesn't enable any kind of closure or final ranking for the season. It also puts fans in the compromising position of having to value the spin about a team instead of just settling questions on the field. Finally, the system can't decide whether conferences are important. A system that ranks a weak champion like Ohio State so highly should, commensurately, rank a team like Georgia that couldn't even win its division quite lowly. Guaranteeing a spot for the conference champs makes sense; it's a good way to ensure participation of the major conferences and recognize the importance of winning the conference. It doesn't make sense, though, to force a second team from a weak conference (the effect of preventing three teams from the same conference being in the BCS).
That means, of course, the insanity continues well past New Year's Day. First, you've got the ACC champion Virginia Tech Hokies. The Hokies are ranked number one in the computer system. Now, if we don't trust computers, fine, just rely on the polls. But a BCS where the computers are so impotent that their number one team doesn't even make the championship game is so bizarrely stupid it's difficult to quantify. To add insult to injury, they're not even matched up against another conference champion. Instead, they get the third best team in the Big 12. Or wait, is that the second best team?
See, the problem with not having guidelines for how to rank teams is that you get inconsistency. That's why the NFL has specific rules for how to rank teams (ie, tiebreakers). It may not always decide the 'best' team, but it decides how to decide, then defines the team that won that decision as the best team. Everybody knows the scenarios and who comes out on top before there is controversy. You have to decide these rules because there is no objective way of breaking a tie like Missouri/Kansas. Either the division winner is more important, or the number of losses is more important, or the head to head is more important, or the quality wins is more important, or the teams lost to is more important, etc.
That is important because what we really want to do is compare football teams across conferences. While Virginia Tech really has nothing to win now, the opportunity for Kansas is to show that the Big 12 is having a flabbergastingly dominant season. Essentially, the BCS is saying that the number three team is as good as other conferences' champs. The obvious parallel to Kansas is Georgia. They should be playing each other, and Missouri and Tennessee should be playing each other (or, as I would vote, Missouri vs Georgia and Kansas vs Tennessee). But of course, USC 'must' play a Big Ten team in that all-powerful game, the Rose Bowl. What a beauty that game was! And then by beating a team that is not one of the country's best, that somehow makes them one of the country's best? [hmmm, what team can I think of that beat Illinois and has a better record than USC?] Meanwhile, Oklahoma's prize for winning the (arguably) toughest conference is not a shot at the national championship game, nor an easy(er) game against an at-large bid. They draw the only other match-up against another major conference champion.
It's pretty clear from both the regular season and the bowls that the Big 12 and the SEC stood out from the rest of the conferences. The number 4 Big 12 team (TX) pounded the number 2 Pac 10 team (ASU). The number 5 Big 12 team (TX Tech) knocked off the number 3 ACC squad (Virginia). The number 5 SEC squad (Auburn) knocked off the number 5 ACC team (Clemson). The number 3 SEC team (Georgia) pounded WAC champ Hawaii. Number 2 SEC Tennessee beat the Big 10's number 4 (Wisconsin). During the regular season, the two conferences beat such teams as Wake Forest, Illinois, and Virginia Tech. When you look at the Pac 10, the Big 10, the Big East, and the ACC, there just aren't the teams to compete this year.
So if wins set them apart from the pack, how do I pick a winner between the two, you ask? Well, thanks for asking. It's when you look at the losses that things stand out to me. For example, the difference between Oklahoma losing to Big East champion West Virginia and Florida losing to unranked Michigan is pretty big (and let me say early and often, I thought Michigan was going to knock off Florida). The difference in the two head to head bowl games, of course, is even more enormous. Alabama and Colorado both showed why they were 6-6. Alabama won by six (Ross, I'm sure you are excited about that). Missouri, meanwhile, showed that the 'second tier' in the Big 12 was measurably superior to the second tier in the SEC, both in terms of overall record (3-0 vs 2-1) and in who they beat (Arizona State in particular). Or a different way to say it, the top 5 Big 12 teams finished 54-13, while the top 5 SEC teams finished 50-16 with LSU still left to play. [In contrast, the ACC was 49-18, Big 10 47-17 with Ohio State left to play, Big East 46-18, and the Pac 10 45-20.]
I'm not going to hold my breath, though, for ESPN to be talking about the superiority of the Big 12 this year.
One other thing we know is that I can't count. In my bowl predictions, I counted an SEC team as a Big East team, and just plain can't count the Big Ten. Sorry Mississippi State!
How am I doing? Well, not too shabby, but probably not superbly enough to have cleaned up in Vegas. Here's what I originally predicted a month ago [remember LSU/OSU is still to come]:
Big 12: 5-3
Pac 10: 4-2
SEC: 4-4 [note, this should be 5-4, since I can't count]
ACC: 4-4
Big East: 3-3 [note, this should be 2-3, since I can't count]
Big Ten: 3-4 [note, this should be 4-4, since I can't count]
Basically, I thought the ACC would win a game against the SEC. Well, you know, I thought the ACC would win against somebody, at least. Here's how they actually played out.
SEC: 6-2 (one to play)
Big 12: 5-3
Pac 10: 4-2
Big 10: 3-4 (one to play)
Big East: 2-2 (one to play)
ACC: 2-6
What we know about college football is that there were two good conferences and a whole bunch of mediocre ones this year. We also know the reason the BCS system doesn't work isn't because it destroys all the old, traditional match-ups or because it's impossible to rank teams nationally. The problem is it tries to do both. So, instead of having set games each year (for example, say, always having the SEC champ play the ACC champ, Big 12/Big East, and Pac 10/Big 10) or instead of matching the top teams against each other (1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc), it does this incredibly awkward combo move that really is a just the same old same old. When the pundits decide that Georgia is playing great football, or that it doesn't matter that USC lost to Stanford, well, we're just supposed to accept that.
New Year's Day illustrated the absurdity quite plainly. Missouri, USC, and Georgia are three of the best teams in the country. Exactly where to rank them is a fun task I'll get to later, but the immediate problem the BCS has is none of them played each other! Instead, they all played teams they should beat, and guess what, they all beat them. In the first quarter. 35 to 34, to be exact. That's 35 first quarter points vs 34 total game points. Just process that for a second. All three teams won their games by more than 30 points.
No one wins from that system. It makes the games less exciting and doesn't enable any kind of closure or final ranking for the season. It also puts fans in the compromising position of having to value the spin about a team instead of just settling questions on the field. Finally, the system can't decide whether conferences are important. A system that ranks a weak champion like Ohio State so highly should, commensurately, rank a team like Georgia that couldn't even win its division quite lowly. Guaranteeing a spot for the conference champs makes sense; it's a good way to ensure participation of the major conferences and recognize the importance of winning the conference. It doesn't make sense, though, to force a second team from a weak conference (the effect of preventing three teams from the same conference being in the BCS).
That means, of course, the insanity continues well past New Year's Day. First, you've got the ACC champion Virginia Tech Hokies. The Hokies are ranked number one in the computer system. Now, if we don't trust computers, fine, just rely on the polls. But a BCS where the computers are so impotent that their number one team doesn't even make the championship game is so bizarrely stupid it's difficult to quantify. To add insult to injury, they're not even matched up against another conference champion. Instead, they get the third best team in the Big 12. Or wait, is that the second best team?
See, the problem with not having guidelines for how to rank teams is that you get inconsistency. That's why the NFL has specific rules for how to rank teams (ie, tiebreakers). It may not always decide the 'best' team, but it decides how to decide, then defines the team that won that decision as the best team. Everybody knows the scenarios and who comes out on top before there is controversy. You have to decide these rules because there is no objective way of breaking a tie like Missouri/Kansas. Either the division winner is more important, or the number of losses is more important, or the head to head is more important, or the quality wins is more important, or the teams lost to is more important, etc.
That is important because what we really want to do is compare football teams across conferences. While Virginia Tech really has nothing to win now, the opportunity for Kansas is to show that the Big 12 is having a flabbergastingly dominant season. Essentially, the BCS is saying that the number three team is as good as other conferences' champs. The obvious parallel to Kansas is Georgia. They should be playing each other, and Missouri and Tennessee should be playing each other (or, as I would vote, Missouri vs Georgia and Kansas vs Tennessee). But of course, USC 'must' play a Big Ten team in that all-powerful game, the Rose Bowl. What a beauty that game was! And then by beating a team that is not one of the country's best, that somehow makes them one of the country's best? [hmmm, what team can I think of that beat Illinois and has a better record than USC?] Meanwhile, Oklahoma's prize for winning the (arguably) toughest conference is not a shot at the national championship game, nor an easy(er) game against an at-large bid. They draw the only other match-up against another major conference champion.
It's pretty clear from both the regular season and the bowls that the Big 12 and the SEC stood out from the rest of the conferences. The number 4 Big 12 team (TX) pounded the number 2 Pac 10 team (ASU). The number 5 Big 12 team (TX Tech) knocked off the number 3 ACC squad (Virginia). The number 5 SEC squad (Auburn) knocked off the number 5 ACC team (Clemson). The number 3 SEC team (Georgia) pounded WAC champ Hawaii. Number 2 SEC Tennessee beat the Big 10's number 4 (Wisconsin). During the regular season, the two conferences beat such teams as Wake Forest, Illinois, and Virginia Tech. When you look at the Pac 10, the Big 10, the Big East, and the ACC, there just aren't the teams to compete this year.
So if wins set them apart from the pack, how do I pick a winner between the two, you ask? Well, thanks for asking. It's when you look at the losses that things stand out to me. For example, the difference between Oklahoma losing to Big East champion West Virginia and Florida losing to unranked Michigan is pretty big (and let me say early and often, I thought Michigan was going to knock off Florida). The difference in the two head to head bowl games, of course, is even more enormous. Alabama and Colorado both showed why they were 6-6. Alabama won by six (Ross, I'm sure you are excited about that). Missouri, meanwhile, showed that the 'second tier' in the Big 12 was measurably superior to the second tier in the SEC, both in terms of overall record (3-0 vs 2-1) and in who they beat (Arizona State in particular). Or a different way to say it, the top 5 Big 12 teams finished 54-13, while the top 5 SEC teams finished 50-16 with LSU still left to play. [In contrast, the ACC was 49-18, Big 10 47-17 with Ohio State left to play, Big East 46-18, and the Pac 10 45-20.]
I'm not going to hold my breath, though, for ESPN to be talking about the superiority of the Big 12 this year.
One other thing we know is that I can't count. In my bowl predictions, I counted an SEC team as a Big East team, and just plain can't count the Big Ten. Sorry Mississippi State!
How am I doing? Well, not too shabby, but probably not superbly enough to have cleaned up in Vegas. Here's what I originally predicted a month ago [remember LSU/OSU is still to come]:
Big 12: 5-3
Pac 10: 4-2
SEC: 4-4 [note, this should be 5-4, since I can't count]
ACC: 4-4
Big East: 3-3 [note, this should be 2-3, since I can't count]
Big Ten: 3-4 [note, this should be 4-4, since I can't count]
Basically, I thought the ACC would win a game against the SEC. Well, you know, I thought the ACC would win against somebody, at least. Here's how they actually played out.
SEC: 6-2 (one to play)
Big 12: 5-3
Pac 10: 4-2
Big 10: 3-4 (one to play)
Big East: 2-2 (one to play)
ACC: 2-6
12/09/2007
head in the sand
Alright, after a week of denial, I think I can finally talk about football. After putting themselves in the incredibly unlikely position of actually being able to win their division earlier in the season, it appears the Chiefs are almost as bad as the 'experts' predicted (however, it is worth noting that they're still clearly not among the very worst teams this year, and will finish much more competitively, and with more wins, than those ESPN folks thought possible).
More emotionally taxing has been the college season. Setting aside the elephant in the room that the NCAA's men's football and basketball leagues are for-profit entities acting as employers, this season has been ridiculous. For one thing, it seems a critical mass of commentators are sick of hearing about how much better the SEC is than every other conference. It's not exactly like Georgia set up a monster non-conference schedule. Their toughest contest was against 6-6 Oklahoma State. At home. If Kansas had set up a home game against, say, 6-6 South Carolina, would people all of a sudden be talking about them as playing the best football in the country? Georgia didn't even play a team making it to the BCS. Tennessee, the SEC East champion, beat Georgia and played two BCS bound teams. Which of course is irrelevant, because Georgia 'is playing great football now', which, by the way, is pretty easy to do when the last two teams you face in the season both have five losses. And at any rate, Tennessee ended up losing to 6-6 Cal (at least that was a road game), and had four losses overall. Those six losses are twice as many as the top two teams had in the Big 12 North. You can't blame losses like Cal on the SEC 'beating each other up' because Tennessee hadn't even played an SEC team when they lost to Cal!
Meanwhile, in the west, LSU is clearly one of the top ten teams in the country. But they lost twice, including one loss at home. And with a non-conference schedule against powerhouses like MTSU and La Tech, man, they should obviously be in the championship game. LSU really only has one impressive win, at home early against Virginia Tech. The rest of their season looks pretty average, barely winning against Florida and Tennessee, losing to Kentucky and Arkansas. The rest of the west had at least three conference losses and at least four losses overall. Auburn, the second place team, nearly lost the first three games of its season (ie, the part of the schedule played outside the SEC).
It's not like the Big 12 or the Big Ten or the Pac 10 had better non-conference schedules. Not at all. The point is that the SEC didn't prove anything special, which suggests looking at the records. And you have to go down to the 5th place team in the Big 12 to find a 4-loss team. It's almost unbelievable, but the top three teams in the Big 12 combined for 33 wins, and three of their five losses came against each other. All three teams went undefeated at home. They played four games against BCS bound teams, and they didn't lose a single game outside the Big 12. LSU, Georgia, and Tennessee, meanwhile, had three fewer wins, and they only played two games against each other, meaning that they lost six games against other teams, more than the entire total losses of the top three in the Big 12. They also played one fewer game against BCS bound teams.
But of course, it's the SEC, not the Big 12, that has two teams near the top of the BCS, one of which is bound for the National Championship. Missouri has more quality wins than LSU, beating both BCS bound Kansas and BCS bound Illinois at neutral sites, and only losing to 11 win, Big 12 Champion Oklahoma. Kansas had only one loss, at a neutral site against 11 win, Big 12 North champion Missouri. And Oklahoma beat Missouri twice and Texas once in winning the Big 12 Championship. All three have cases at least as strong as LSU. Seriously, why even have computers? If the polls are 2/3 the vote, just use the poll and scrap the concept of more objective computer rankings.
LSU is a feel good choice, especially with the game in New Orleans. And this leaves Missouri hungry for building on future seasons, with a shot this season of embarrassing the team that beat LSU at home with a national TV game against Arkansas. And Kansas gets a BCS bowl, which really, is pretty fair, all things considered. If Kansas somehow manages to win that game against Virginia Tech, I think you might have some people vote for them as the national champion (after all, Virginia Tech is ranked number one by the computers). [Did I mention that Missouri played four games, four games!, against BCS bound teams, none of them, zero, zippo, nada, at home!?! Their worst loss of the season was in the conference championship! They won their division! They beat two different BCS bound teams, from two different conferences!] And I can't be too upset, once you step back and analyze everything, because the rules are clear that you can't have more than two teams from a conference, even if the computer ranks you 4th in the country. Plus, it gives Missouri the dubious distinction of probably having the most wins ever by a major conference team excluded from the BCS. That will be a winning trivia answer for years to come. Virginia Tech, after all, is really the team that got screwed, being locked out of the national championship by those mysterious human experts, and getting matched up against Kansas. If they win, the 'experts' will just say they should have won anyway because Kansas wasn't really that good because their schedule was so soft, with Kansas' whole season being ridiculed all along the way. If they lose, they will point to the loss and say if you can't beat Kansas, how can you claim to deserve a rematch against LSU or be better than one loss Ohio State?
Don't even get me started on Ohio State. At least the SEC won some good games, and they have a crop of teams that are very competitive this year. All Ohio State did was beat a conference rival, a 4 loss rival at that. In their only game against a BCS bound team, they lost. At home! Even the 'granddaddy of 'em all' suffers. What could have been USC-Ohio State (arguably the best bowl match-up anyway), is now USC-Illinois. Bleh. If Illinois somehow wins, it shows that the Missouri win is even bigger than people think and that the Pac 10 really sucked this year (and really will make the MU/IL game exciting next year). If USC wins, uh, well, we won't know anything at all. This is practically a home game for them against a three loss team that's not even ranked in the top ten from a conference that is noticeably weak in the football arena this year.
I (generally) like Columbus and all. I'm just saying that Buckeye fans better enjoy their gift this holiday season.
So how do you solve this? Well, there's no easy way, since we have an undefeated midmajor, a Rose Bowl that wants Pac 10/Big Ten, and three Big 12 teams that should make the BCS. But this would be better:
Rematch LSU and Virginia Tech in the national championship (they are, after all, #1 and #2 in the computers).
Let Hawaii have a shot at Oklahoma, the best conference champ not in the national championship, in the Fiesta Bowl, which is also a little closer to their time zone.
The winners of those two games would then have legitimate cases of their national championship worthiness.
Then let the Rose Bowl have Pac 10 champ USC and Big Ten champ Ohio State. They can play for the 'historic big name program that didn't play any big games this year' championship.
Send Arizona State to play Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. They have, after all, had nearly identical seasons, with 2 losses and both reaching as at large bids. Except, uh, Georgia is 'playing really good football right now'.
Let Missouri and West Virginia have their match-up in the Orange Bowl. It's like the national championship, but less important.
I think those matchups would be more intriguing, would better reflect the quality of the conferences this season, and would better emphasize the importance of doing well in your conference. Instead of a weak national championship game, no shot for Hawaii against a major conference champion, and two games that have teams which are 'supposed' to win (USC and Virginia Tech) and 'supposed' to lose (Illinois and Kansas), these games would be competitive and would give the winners of these games a chance to argue that their win means something. Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, and Hawaii deserve a chance to at least argue they deserve the national championship. You do that by putting one in the Championship game and having the other two hit each other, not by pitting two of them against teams that didn't even make it to their conference championship game.
Since the Rose Bowl is dead set on a Big Ten team, and the Big Ten has been weak, it makes the most sense of Ohio State/LSU for Ohio State to not go to the national championship. Conversely, if you send Kansas to the BCS instead of Missouri, because records are most important, then really, Hawaii should be playing in the national championship, not LSU. Even though they're undefeated, I don't think Hawaii should be in there, and that still leaves the problem of a second Big Ten team making it because the Rose Bowl will pick a Big Ten team (especially since the next best team, arguably, is from the Pac 10). You want your conference to get two teams in the BCS and have a shot at the championship, but at the same time, the Big Ten is running a very real risk of having two teams now lose high profile games, instead of having one game with a better shot of winning it. Michigan, ironically, might actually have the best shot out of the Big Ten now to win an important game. Either that, or the Big Ten's top four squads might go 0-4 against the SEC and Pac-10. Ouch.
My predictions for the next month:
Big 12: 5-3
Pac 10: 4-2
SEC: 4-4
ACC: 4-4
Big East: 3-3
Big Ten: 3-4
More emotionally taxing has been the college season. Setting aside the elephant in the room that the NCAA's men's football and basketball leagues are for-profit entities acting as employers, this season has been ridiculous. For one thing, it seems a critical mass of commentators are sick of hearing about how much better the SEC is than every other conference. It's not exactly like Georgia set up a monster non-conference schedule. Their toughest contest was against 6-6 Oklahoma State. At home. If Kansas had set up a home game against, say, 6-6 South Carolina, would people all of a sudden be talking about them as playing the best football in the country? Georgia didn't even play a team making it to the BCS. Tennessee, the SEC East champion, beat Georgia and played two BCS bound teams. Which of course is irrelevant, because Georgia 'is playing great football now', which, by the way, is pretty easy to do when the last two teams you face in the season both have five losses. And at any rate, Tennessee ended up losing to 6-6 Cal (at least that was a road game), and had four losses overall. Those six losses are twice as many as the top two teams had in the Big 12 North. You can't blame losses like Cal on the SEC 'beating each other up' because Tennessee hadn't even played an SEC team when they lost to Cal!
Meanwhile, in the west, LSU is clearly one of the top ten teams in the country. But they lost twice, including one loss at home. And with a non-conference schedule against powerhouses like MTSU and La Tech, man, they should obviously be in the championship game. LSU really only has one impressive win, at home early against Virginia Tech. The rest of their season looks pretty average, barely winning against Florida and Tennessee, losing to Kentucky and Arkansas. The rest of the west had at least three conference losses and at least four losses overall. Auburn, the second place team, nearly lost the first three games of its season (ie, the part of the schedule played outside the SEC).
It's not like the Big 12 or the Big Ten or the Pac 10 had better non-conference schedules. Not at all. The point is that the SEC didn't prove anything special, which suggests looking at the records. And you have to go down to the 5th place team in the Big 12 to find a 4-loss team. It's almost unbelievable, but the top three teams in the Big 12 combined for 33 wins, and three of their five losses came against each other. All three teams went undefeated at home. They played four games against BCS bound teams, and they didn't lose a single game outside the Big 12. LSU, Georgia, and Tennessee, meanwhile, had three fewer wins, and they only played two games against each other, meaning that they lost six games against other teams, more than the entire total losses of the top three in the Big 12. They also played one fewer game against BCS bound teams.
But of course, it's the SEC, not the Big 12, that has two teams near the top of the BCS, one of which is bound for the National Championship. Missouri has more quality wins than LSU, beating both BCS bound Kansas and BCS bound Illinois at neutral sites, and only losing to 11 win, Big 12 Champion Oklahoma. Kansas had only one loss, at a neutral site against 11 win, Big 12 North champion Missouri. And Oklahoma beat Missouri twice and Texas once in winning the Big 12 Championship. All three have cases at least as strong as LSU. Seriously, why even have computers? If the polls are 2/3 the vote, just use the poll and scrap the concept of more objective computer rankings.
LSU is a feel good choice, especially with the game in New Orleans. And this leaves Missouri hungry for building on future seasons, with a shot this season of embarrassing the team that beat LSU at home with a national TV game against Arkansas. And Kansas gets a BCS bowl, which really, is pretty fair, all things considered. If Kansas somehow manages to win that game against Virginia Tech, I think you might have some people vote for them as the national champion (after all, Virginia Tech is ranked number one by the computers). [Did I mention that Missouri played four games, four games!, against BCS bound teams, none of them, zero, zippo, nada, at home!?! Their worst loss of the season was in the conference championship! They won their division! They beat two different BCS bound teams, from two different conferences!] And I can't be too upset, once you step back and analyze everything, because the rules are clear that you can't have more than two teams from a conference, even if the computer ranks you 4th in the country. Plus, it gives Missouri the dubious distinction of probably having the most wins ever by a major conference team excluded from the BCS. That will be a winning trivia answer for years to come. Virginia Tech, after all, is really the team that got screwed, being locked out of the national championship by those mysterious human experts, and getting matched up against Kansas. If they win, the 'experts' will just say they should have won anyway because Kansas wasn't really that good because their schedule was so soft, with Kansas' whole season being ridiculed all along the way. If they lose, they will point to the loss and say if you can't beat Kansas, how can you claim to deserve a rematch against LSU or be better than one loss Ohio State?
Don't even get me started on Ohio State. At least the SEC won some good games, and they have a crop of teams that are very competitive this year. All Ohio State did was beat a conference rival, a 4 loss rival at that. In their only game against a BCS bound team, they lost. At home! Even the 'granddaddy of 'em all' suffers. What could have been USC-Ohio State (arguably the best bowl match-up anyway), is now USC-Illinois. Bleh. If Illinois somehow wins, it shows that the Missouri win is even bigger than people think and that the Pac 10 really sucked this year (and really will make the MU/IL game exciting next year). If USC wins, uh, well, we won't know anything at all. This is practically a home game for them against a three loss team that's not even ranked in the top ten from a conference that is noticeably weak in the football arena this year.
I (generally) like Columbus and all. I'm just saying that Buckeye fans better enjoy their gift this holiday season.
So how do you solve this? Well, there's no easy way, since we have an undefeated midmajor, a Rose Bowl that wants Pac 10/Big Ten, and three Big 12 teams that should make the BCS. But this would be better:
Rematch LSU and Virginia Tech in the national championship (they are, after all, #1 and #2 in the computers).
Let Hawaii have a shot at Oklahoma, the best conference champ not in the national championship, in the Fiesta Bowl, which is also a little closer to their time zone.
The winners of those two games would then have legitimate cases of their national championship worthiness.
Then let the Rose Bowl have Pac 10 champ USC and Big Ten champ Ohio State. They can play for the 'historic big name program that didn't play any big games this year' championship.
Send Arizona State to play Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. They have, after all, had nearly identical seasons, with 2 losses and both reaching as at large bids. Except, uh, Georgia is 'playing really good football right now'.
Let Missouri and West Virginia have their match-up in the Orange Bowl. It's like the national championship, but less important.
I think those matchups would be more intriguing, would better reflect the quality of the conferences this season, and would better emphasize the importance of doing well in your conference. Instead of a weak national championship game, no shot for Hawaii against a major conference champion, and two games that have teams which are 'supposed' to win (USC and Virginia Tech) and 'supposed' to lose (Illinois and Kansas), these games would be competitive and would give the winners of these games a chance to argue that their win means something. Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, and Hawaii deserve a chance to at least argue they deserve the national championship. You do that by putting one in the Championship game and having the other two hit each other, not by pitting two of them against teams that didn't even make it to their conference championship game.
Since the Rose Bowl is dead set on a Big Ten team, and the Big Ten has been weak, it makes the most sense of Ohio State/LSU for Ohio State to not go to the national championship. Conversely, if you send Kansas to the BCS instead of Missouri, because records are most important, then really, Hawaii should be playing in the national championship, not LSU. Even though they're undefeated, I don't think Hawaii should be in there, and that still leaves the problem of a second Big Ten team making it because the Rose Bowl will pick a Big Ten team (especially since the next best team, arguably, is from the Pac 10). You want your conference to get two teams in the BCS and have a shot at the championship, but at the same time, the Big Ten is running a very real risk of having two teams now lose high profile games, instead of having one game with a better shot of winning it. Michigan, ironically, might actually have the best shot out of the Big Ten now to win an important game. Either that, or the Big Ten's top four squads might go 0-4 against the SEC and Pac-10. Ouch.
My predictions for the next month:
Big 12: 5-3
Pac 10: 4-2
SEC: 4-4
ACC: 4-4
Big East: 3-3
Big Ten: 3-4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)