re: BCS works __% of the time? 27%

quote:

---

AU has the weakest SOS. When you have undefeated teams, the only thing the BCS computers can really use to separate the teams is SOS.

---

Shouldn't a superior 8 game + conference champ game schedule trump a three game OOC schedule? There has not been a year any time this decade that the Big XII was better than the SEC.

quote:

---

Relative to recent standands, the SEC sucked!

---

Maybe so, but it was still better than the Big XII that year. Keep in mind, "experts" said the same thing about this past season and we see how that turned out.

ETA...when nobody in one of the two divisions in a conference has a winning conference record as the BXII did in 04, it pretty much says it all.

quote:

---

98 - OSU was left out

---

Nope, they got it right. Florida State had one loss and a much tougher SOS. 1 for 1

quote:

---

99 - two undefeated (doesn't mean it worked)

---

Both teams were undefeated in BCS conference with decent SOS. 2 for 2

quote:

---

2000 - Miami shafted

---

I'll agree here. Florida State lost to Miami, who lost to Washington. All three teams had one loss with top 10 SOS. 2 for 3

quote:

---

2001 - Neb should've never been either Oregon or CU

---

Another fricked up year. Nebraska deserved to be in over Oregon IMO. But the Nebraska-Colorado debate could go on for days. A 40 point loss to win your division of the conference doesn't say much. Tough call. 2 for 4

quote:

---

2002 - two undefeated(doesn't mean it worked)

---

Both teams were undefeated with good strength of schedules. Also, no other undefeated teams in the mix. 3 for 5

quote:

---

2003 - OU should've never been

---

They lost one game and were hands down the #1 team in then nation the last 6 weeks of the season. The BCS bases it's top 2 teams based off of the entire body of work. OU and LSU were both one loss teams with a much better SOS than USC. This is a tough call, but I think they got it right. 4 for 6

quote:

---

2004 - Undef. Auburn and Utah left out (gay)

---

I still think the right two teams got in, reguardless of how bad OU played in the championship. 5 for 7

quote:

---

2005 - two undefeated(doesn't mean it worked)

---

It worked here. Hands down the two best teams in the nation. 6 for 8

quote:

---

2006 - USC and FL one loss, and OSU didn't look like it shouldn't been in it

---

OSU deserved to be in, and Florida deserved to be in over USC and Michigan. 7 for 9

quote:

---

2007 - there were at least two other teams with 2 losses (USC & GA)

---

LSU won the conference that UGA was in and they had the SAME AMOUNT OF LOSSES. LSU had a much better SOS than USC, and they beat Virginia Tech head-to-head. It got it right. 8 for 10

quote:

---

2008 - TX, USC left out.

---

Although personally I do think the BCS put the right two teams in the championship game, this one can be debated. But at the end of the day, Oklahoma won the Big 12, and they had a tougher SOS than USC. It's not the BCS's fault that the Big 12 decided to pick the BCS rankings to determine their champion. 9 for 11

So I'd say 9 for 11.

quote:

---

Shouldn't a superior 8 game + conference champ game schedule trump a three game OOC schedule? There has not been a year any time this decade that the Big XII was better than the SEC.

---

Yes, I believe that the upper half of a schedule is a better indication of overall strenght than the average, but for the most part that's not the way it's done.

quote:

---

Maybe so, but it was still better than the Big XII that year. Keep in mind, "experts" said the same thing about this past season and we see how that turned out.

---

OOC schedules matter in these computer models. The best wins OOC by AU's SEC opponents were:

LSU over 7-4 Troy
LSU over 6-5 Oregon St.
AL over 6-5 Southern Miss
GA over 6-5 Marshall
GA over 6-5 GATech

That's it. There were no other victories over teams with winning records.

AU's SEC opponents also lost to:

MSU lost to non1A Maine
TN (SEC CG participant; AU played twice) lost to 6-5 ND
Kent lost to 4-7 Ohio

All other losses (5 more, but only 1 to a BCS team) were to teams with winning records.

In addition to AU playing the Citadel and MSU losing to Maine, two more nonIA teams were played by AU's SEC opponents: AL played W. Carolina and GA played GA Southern.

To give you a little comparison, in 2007, the entire conference only lost 1 game to a nonBCS team (ULM over AL ).

Here are the comparable numbers for OK:

The best wins OOC by OK's Big12 opponents were:

TX over 7-4 N. TX
Kan over 9-3 Toledo
Ok St over 6-5 UCLA
A&M over 6-5 Wyoming
A&M over 6-5 Clemson
Neb over 8-3 Pitt
Bay over 7-4 N. TX
Col over 7-4 N. TX

OK's Big12 opponents lost to no OOC team with a losing record. OK did not play a nonIA team and it's Big12 opponents played 3 but did not lose to one.

The point of all this is that this kind of performance is going to make OK look better than AU. AU did themselves no favor with their OOC sched, but the SEC performance was a big contributor too.

How many of these controversies mentioned would have been eliminated had there been a simple requirement for a conference championship to play in the BCS title game?

2001, 2003, 2006, and 2007 for sure.

I think it would go a long way toward taking some heat off the BCS.

quote:

---

The best wins OOC by AU's SEC opponents were:

LSU over 7-4 Troy
LSU over 6-5 Oregon St.
AL over 6-5 Southern Miss
GA over 6-5 Marshall
GA over 6-5 GATech

The best wins OOC by OK's Big12 opponents were:

TX over 7-4 N. TX
Kan over 9-3 Toledo
Ok St over 6-5 UCLA
A&M over 6-5 Wyoming
A&M over 6-5 Clemson
Neb over 8-3 Pitt
Bay over 7-4 N. TX
Col over 7-4 N. TX

---

I see your point but it's a flawed formula. You can't just take the records without regard to which conference the team plays in...ex I would take Oregon St over Wyoming, N Texas and maybe even Pitt in this example. Just looking at it, basically every decent team NT played, beat them. You wanna know who Toledo beat that year? Eastern Mich, Temple, Ball St, West Mich, Ohio, Central Mich, No Ill, Bowl Grn, and MiaO. Take another hypothetical...say team A plays and beats the respective champs of the Sun Belt, MAC and Conference USA, all of whom end up with a 10-2 record. Is that better than team B beating a 7-4 Big XII team, a 8-3 Pac 10 team and a 7-4 ACC team? I say no.

quote:

---

For me, the playoff versus status quo boils down to one thing. Any system under which each team on day 1 (i.e. before a game is very played) does not completely control its own destiny is unacceptable.

---

I can understand that... but the only team I ever felt got really screwed was Auburn in 2004. Every other school who griped either 1) lost a game or 2) simply didn't schedule tough enough (ex. Utah).

I am not open to anything that would make college football resemble college basketball. As one of the previous poster said, I cringe at the thought of "screw it... we'll just beat them in the playoffs" happening to this sport.

quote:

---

I am not open to anything that would make college football resemble college basketball. As one of the previous poster said, I cringe at the thought of "screw it... we'll just beat them in the playoffs" happening to this sport.

---

I agree completely with you on that point.

quote:

---

000- FSU lost too, but head to head to Miami (but guess that doesn't matter)

---

Head-to-head is a tie-breaker. FSU and Miami weren't tied. FSU was ahead; they had a better record and a tougher schedule.

quote:

---

Not winning their conference is very flawed logic. That should have nothing to do with a team making it or not making it to the Championship.

---

How can you be the best team in the nation when you're not even the best in your conference?

Is the BCS the best system for determining the CFB National Champion? Probably not, but it's one helluva lot better than what we had (can you say BYU?).

quote:

---

Shouldn't a superior 8 game + conference champ game schedule trump a three game OOC schedule? There has not been a year any time this decade that the Big XII was better than the SEC

---

This is an argument favored by an alarming majority of posters on the rant. The assumption is that the SEC is better than all the other conferences, and therefore there exists an inherent scheduling advantage in playing in the SEC.

But the truth is that the only thing we can know for certain about any conference is which team is the best team within that conference. While we may think that teams from one conference are better than teams from another, without actual evidence to support that conclusion, the BCS cannot make that conclusion.

2004 was such a year. Even though many thought the SEC, and therefore Auburn as its champion, were better than the champion of the Big XII, there was no evidence of that outsides the bounds of the conference.

This kind of thing can happen again if we adopt the philosophy that the SEC is tough enough, why schedule challenging OOC games? That's exactly what cost Auburn that year. Contrarily, it is was saved us in 2007 - our victory over Virginia Tech.