BCS Bustin': The Final Standings in Realpolitik
by SMQ on Dec 2, 2007 10:34 PM EST
in News
Email
PrintFirst, the standings. Note the very significant disparity in human and computer opinions of Virginia Tech and Ohio State:
| Rank | Team | BCS Pts. | Harris | Coaches | Comp. Avg. |
| 1. | Ohio State | .959 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 2. | LSU | .939 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 3. | Virginia Tech | .870 | 6 | 5 | 1 |
| 4. | Oklahoma | .857 | 3 | 3 | T-6 |
| 5. | Georgia | .839 | 4 | 4 | T-6 |
| 6. | Missouri | .776 | 7 | 7 | 4 |
| 7. | Southern Cal | .764 | 5 | 6 | 9 |
| 8. | Kansas | .759 | 8 | 8 | 5 |
| 9. | West Virginia | .663 | 9 | 9 | 10 |
| 10. | Hawaii | .647 | 10 | 1- | 12 |
And the bowls:
Mythical Championship: Ohio State vs. LSU
Rose Bowl: Southern Cal vs. Illinois
Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs. Hawaii
Orenge Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Kansas
Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. West Virginia
For the record, in the last hour, this blog has received no less than two dozen hits for searchers of "Colt Brennan shirtless," which is like twice what that term brings in on an average day. Kid should have a good time on Bourbon Street.
Also for the record, only one "national champion" has ever been voted into the top spot of a major poll that finished with two losses: Minnesota in 1960, tabbed at number one by the AP and UPI prior to losing the Rose Bowl to Washington and shares the championship with the Huskies, Ole Miss, Missouri and Iowa, depending on who you ask. Since it was a pre-bowl title, in fact, no team has ever won a widely recognized mythical national championship with two losses.
So LSU, if it wins – my initial thought is that the Tigers should be at least field goal favorites if healthy – will be breaking new ground, and it’s worth keeping in mind as championship hype reaches a fever pitch over the next month that LSU has a chance for a designation that dozens and dozens of one-loss and a few undefeated teams did not have in more accomplished seasons; in the last 15 years alone, members and partisans of undefeated, uncrowned teams from Penn State (1994) and Auburn (2004) are just thrilled by this turn of events, I’m sure, along with at least one jilted one-loss team from every season as far back as you care to go that would stake a claim to the top spot this year. It can’t be any other way this season – vacating the title isn’t an option, unfortunately – but by virtue of its two losses alone, LSU’s season could be the weakest of any champion in the last four decades. They probably won’t put that on the banner.
Me, I’ve only had four undefeated teams miss playing for a national championsip. Eh, whaddaya gonna do?
- - -
Arizona State and Missouri = screwed, I guess, though neither is surprising. The Devils and Tigers are in front of Illinois and Kansas, respectively, in every poll, but the Rose Bowl was obviously intent on securing the traditional Pac Ten-Big Ten matchup with the Illini and the Orange Bowl, well, I suppose the Orange Bowl figured one loss is better than two. The Jayhawks make no sense over Missouri otherwise, having lost to Mizzou, obviously, and ranking below MU in both human polls and four of the six computers. The computers like Arizona State, but with Hawaii qualifying automatically, Georgia and Kansas/Missouri locks for two of the last three at-large spots, and no chance of a rematch with SC in the Rose, ASU was doomed to be snubbed for the Illini, who with this bid might pass their Big 12 North competition as the outrageous surprise of the season. Really: Illinois, in the Rose Bowl? Fact. Even the optimists among us wouldn’t dream of it.
Assuming USC and Virginia Tech will be substantial favorites, the Oklahoma-West Virginia match in the Fiesta is the only really intriguing pairing outside of the championship. Oklahoma is a winner in that regard, with a distant chance to challenge LSU for a split title in the AP ballot if the respective margins of victory work in the Sooners’ favor. Georgia, on the other hand, is the loser, put in the position to either play the OU role as victim to the heroic climax of Hawaii’s dream season or gain nothing in the polls or public mind by beating the Warriors as expected. UGA has been a big favorite in the Sugar Bowl before, and it didn’t work so well for the Dawgs last time.
That’s it – plenty to bitch about for the haters, as always, but if you take the system at face value, there are no alarms and no surprises.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Perhaps I'm just irrational...
And although it's completely unimportant, I am ever so slightly vexed that narrow wins over a bad Arizona and a worse Washington cost Florida two spots in the final standings. Am I being petty, getting vexed (to any degree, however slight) over something so trivial? Yes, yes I am. But this is college football, dammit! Pettiness, vexation and triviality are part of the fun.
by peachy on Dec 2, 2007 11:04 PM EST reply actions
UF...
I said it was petty and trivial, and brother - I wasn't kidding. That's what the silly season does to you.
by peachy on Dec 2, 2007 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
No alarms or surprises
Funny how things work out
Notre Dame?
Agreed, though, in general: I expect all of these games to be reasonably close. Every team here has earned the right to expect not to be pummeled.
by SMQ on Dec 3, 2007 4:53 AM EST up reply actions
Line
Considering also that it was in New Orleans, you're right, SMQ, the general consensus was that LSU would hand it to ND, which they did.
by Solon on Dec 3, 2007 9:18 AM EST up reply actions
I disagree
USC is a bad matchup for Illinois. Illinois lives off running the football, and USC is fourth in the country in rushing defense. USC has more balance on offense and a much better defense. Illinois probably won't get crushed, but a 31-10 game is more likely than not.
The only really good team Kansas played this year was Missouri, who beat them fairly soundly. I'd argue Virginia Tech is better than Missouri.
West Virginia showed that the spread can be had (Pitt was locking them up even before White got hurt) and their lack of consistent balance on offense is a killer. Oklahoma could easily make this an ugly game as well.
In fact, the only game I'd argue is more likely to be close than not is the title game, because both Ohio State and LSU are equally flawed and talented at the same time. LSU might be a little better offensively when healthy, Ohio State might be a little bit better defensively.
I'd wager that three of the five games will be more than two-score margins.
by sodakboy93 on Dec 3, 2007 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
No alarms or suprises in the results, however
But with the enormous discrepancy between the computers and the humans, I don't even know why we have the computers. The number of humans voting us 7 or below in the Harris is just disturbing. 7-8 might be defensible, but 9-11 either shows complete ignorance of the last 5 weeks or an attempt to keep us artificially low. Either one is pretty bad, though the latter obviously shows how easily one can game the system. I wish the previous week's ballot was available to test the hypothesis, but at the very least a BlogPoll style analysis of the ballots is needed in the offseason. Same for the coaches (who have even more reason to skew the result) if their ballots are released.
And thus ends another season that exposes the BCS, but gives us a palatable enough result to keep chugging along with minor tweaks into next year.
by legalhokie05 on Dec 3, 2007 6:30 AM EST up reply actions
Joke
If Missouri and WVU had taken care of business, two things would have happened:
- For a month we would have heard about how the "real" championship was the tOSU v. USC Rose Bowl and
- The sec/Big 10/Pac 10 might have been more okay with a +1 because their teams were shut out by a clearly flawed WVU team with a weak schedule and a gimmicky big 12 team (although they beat Oklahoma, so they would have had SOME cred).
Good analysis
We need a couple matchups that really make the old guard uncomfortable (a "weak" Florida team was close last year before it whooped OSU to prove it belonged) before there are any changes.
This is why I Hate the System
Sure, LSU is the most deserving team based on any number of factors, most notably the "three best wins" criteria and the fact they vanquished their only reasonable challenger based on resume (Virginia Tech) earlier in the year. And I'm sure if we had a committee making this choice, they'd have likely come to the same conclusion.
But that's the problem. I don't want to be arguing about the relative merits of the top-two teams when making these selections. If we're arguing about, say, Illinois or Florida or Boston College for the last at-large spot in a 16-team playoff, that's ok - to me that's equivalent to arguing between two seventh-place teams to decide who gets the last at-large in the men's basketball tournament.
(And as an side, don't get me started about Kansas (?) being in a BCS bowl. Forget the records for a second - you're telling me that Kansas is more attractive as a major bowl candidate than Missouri or Arizona State? Illinois, I at least sort of get because of the whole Pac-10/Big-10 thing. But Kansas? I'm sorry, little Jayhawk, but 11-1 should've gotten you a nice trip to Dallas on New Year's Day.)
Yeah, I know, it's the system, blah, blah, I need to get over it. But if we're going to start rigging the polls to get the result we want, then all pretense of objectivity goes out the window. If LSU was the seventh best team last week, a win over a pretty-good Tennessee team by 7 shouldn't have catapaulted them to #2.
by sodakboy93 on Dec 3, 2007 9:03 AM EST reply actions
I agree
The biggest question is, what changed between the afternoon of November 23 and yesterday that made everyone think LSU deserved to play for the national championship? Surely it wasn't that win over Tennessee, right?
by Tom @ Sunday Morning Quarterback on Dec 3, 2007 9:44 AM EST up reply actions
It was everybody else losing
Still, if we buy in to the notion of the BCS, I think LSU is as good a choice as you can make at #2. However, that also presumes that we're all daft and buy in to the notion of the BCS.
"Everybody else losing"
The biggest problem I have is that the human voters aren't neutral and at some point between West Virginia and Missouri's losses on Saturday night and the release of the final BCS standings on Sunday afternoon decided that LSU, number seven in the BCS standings prior to Saturday, should play for the national title. Virginia Tech, Missouri, West Virginia, Kansas, and Georgia all have strikes against them to varying degrees, but why not Oklahoma? After all, if you're going to throw out the argument that both of LSU's losses came in triple overtime, what about Oklahoma's loss to Colorado on a last-second field goal and their loss to Texas Tech, which came only after their starting QB got knocked out of the game early?
by Tom @ Sunday Morning Quarterback on Dec 3, 2007 11:01 AM EST up reply actions
Even if you believe they deserved it...
My point was that if everyone really believed LSU was the #4 team in the country, they should've voted them there in the first place.
That is why you can't trust these decisions to random pollsters and coaches who don't watch the games anyway. You need a dedicated committee using reasonably objective criteria. And that holds true whether it's a two, four or sixteen-team playoff.
by sodakboy93 on Dec 3, 2007 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, LSU jumped in rank
I completely acknowledge that plenty of the voters probably just thought "Oh, LSU...big name...they beat Florida this year too," but anyone who broke down wins, losses, schedule, etc. would (and in some cases surely did) reach that same conclusion. A committee would likely produce more consistently acceptable results throughout the year.
Be consistent
by crepuscular @ Sunday Morning Quarterback on Dec 3, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
As I said below...
Again, not to say that in relative terms LSU didn't deserve the spot but it's how they got there that's disconcerting.
by sodakboy93 on Dec 3, 2007 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
The only thing that changed
The question is whether that's a bad or a good thing. There's something to be said for some consistency in how the system ranks teams from week to week, especially at the end of the season when you've supposedly had 12 weeks to evaluate the teams, but you don't want to be chained to the previous ballot.
by legalhokie05 on Dec 3, 2007 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
Georgia in the Sugar Bowl
Georgia was a little less than a TD favorite in the 2006 Sugar. I believe it was 5.5-6.5 (can't recall exactly), but in any event it wasn't like Georgia was a 10 point - 2 TD favorite.
Georgia lost by 3, were outgained by a single yard (502-501), and WVU benefited from 3 turnovers (leading to 14 "swing points") and WVU needed a successful fake punt to keep Georgia from having a potentially-game-winning drive.
(And WVU entered the game with a better record and ranked just behind Georgia (8th-11th))
The 2005 Sugar has been used for years as a huge knock against Georgia, and a complete elevation of WVU (and the Big East). Look again at the game. It really doesn't say as much as people think it did.
by LD on Dec 3, 2007 9:41 AM EST reply actions
I disagree
I think Louisville's mostly ruthless dissection of Wake Forest in '06 was more telling about where the Big East is.
by sodakboy93 on Dec 3, 2007 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
DoubleB gets it.
DoubleB: They were up 21-0 at the end of the first, but scored very early in the second to go up 28-0.
by LD on Dec 3, 2007 12:21 PM EST reply actions
Let's talk about Hawaii's Schedule for a second...
Yes, there schedule wasn't very good. Can we at agree that it wasn't entirely their fault, though. From the Honolulu Advertiser Feb 13, 2007:
"As late as last week Southern California and Michigan were still possibilities for UH, which will play a 13-game regular season schedule. But UH athletic director Herman Frazier said Michigan, which had initiated contact, has since broken off talks."
Michigan offered to play them, but then changed their minds perhaps preferring to play App State. Nice choice. USC took the high road and went with Idaho instead. Imagine, if you will, how the perception of this season might be a tad different if it had been Hawaii who had beaten Michigan in Ann Arbor in week one versus App State. Sure, it still would have been viewed as a bad loss at the time, but the season may have indicated otherwise. As for USC, I can hardly blame them for not taking the game considering that no one at the time had any idea how much of a debacle the corn huskers and the Irish were going to be by years end.
Hawaii also scrambled for other legitimate games, but there were no takers. Everyone knew that Colt Brennan was there, so they declined this year. So how is their schedule, with the WAC being the WAC, completely their fault?
In a way, this sort of reminds me how a bitter Gary Williams claimed that the MVC teams didn't belong in the tournament because they never played anybody. He followed up by saying that they never asked to play Maryland. The day after he made that statement, every team in the MVC called and asked him for a game. Maryland declined. Go figure...
by Brawndo on Dec 3, 2007 7:06 PM EST reply actions
That's another strike against the system.
This is a phenomenon not quite as prevalent in college basketball, where elite teams often schedule over elite teams in order to improve their RPI and help their tournament positioning. But when going 10-2 or 11-1 - regardless of schedule - gets you into a major bowl game there's no reason to do that.
by sodakboy93 on Dec 4, 2007 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
