BCS Bustin': The Final Standings in Realpolitik

by SMQ on Dec 2, 2007 10:34 PM EST in News Comment 27 comments

First, the standings. Note the very significant disparity in human and computer opinions of Virginia Tech and Ohio State:

*Final BCS Standings, 12-2*

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?
- - -

Anyway, enough of that; you take it when you get it, I guess, and as I said earlier, I agree with the decision to bump the Tigers into the game, even if its merits as an end-all championship are more dubious than ever. The computers actually prefer Virginia Tech (Ken Massey, Jeff Sagarin and Peter Wolfe all ranked the Hokies number one), but Tech was fifth and sixth in the relevant human polls, good enough to finish well in front in spite of the machines. For sure, the forced exclusion of margin of victory in their formulas affected the "thought" process, since a 48-7 obliteration at the hands of LSU in September is just another loss to a very good team by the computer standards.

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.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Perhaps I'm just irrational...

...(like a fox!), but I expected both Illinois and Kansas; the Rose had the first pick of the at-large pool, and losers of conference championship games always get the short end of the stick. (Frankly I'm surprised Mizzou didn't fall further, given the margin of loss, but perhaps the pollsters were just exhausted.)

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 0 recs

Florida?

You mean USC?

by SMQ on Dec 2, 2007 11:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

UF...

...got jumped by Hawaii and ASU in the last edition of the BCS, slipping from #10 to #12; I was referring to their wins over Washington and Arizona. The AP, on the other hand, moved UF up a slot at the expense of... er, West Virginia.

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 0 recs

No alarms or surprises

No alarms or surprises, but also almost no good games. USC will thrash Illinois and Georgia will pummel Hawaii. LSU should handle OSU comfortably, playing at home and having the exact same skill position, safety, and d-line advantages that Florida had last year. Kansas is still a fraud and will likely struggle to score on VT. That leaves OU and WVU to try to salvage the BCS and play an entertaining game, but if Pat White goes down it'll get very ugly, very quickly.

by Year2 on Dec 2, 2007 11:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Funny how things work out

The favored teams never seem to do well in BCS games - maybe it's hearing that they should beat the @#$%! out of their opponent for a month straight. Last year everyone thought OSU would run over Florida, Notre Dame would win, Boise had no chance ... look how that ended up.

by SpartanDan on Dec 3, 2007 2:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Notre Dame?

I don't know the line, but nobody thought ND was going to beat LSU. Or was that some kind of joke?

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 0 recs

Line

LSU was favored over ND by 7 1/2.

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 0 recs

I disagree

I'm sure last year's BSU-OU game will convince Georgia that they have to play a full, competitive game. If they do that, Hawaii has no chance of staying within 20 points because they're quite frankly not two-thirds as good as the Boise State team from '06.

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 0 recs

No alarms or suprises in the results, however

It may just be sour grapes in being number three for me, but it's not so much the results as it is the way things played out that most alarms me. I, and most rational Hokies, didn't expect to be above LSU, though I think there's as good an argument for us as anyone else.

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 0 recs

Joke

This tOSU v. LSU final is actually the WORSE thing for the playoff supporters. Because this matchup allows the powers-that-be (the Big 10 and Pac 10, really) to say, "the system works." Because the SEC champ and the big 10 champ are playing for the MNC -- just how it Should Be.

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).

Anyway, tOSU and LSU is The Way Things Should Be. And we better get used to it.

by CardsFan922 on Dec 3, 2007 6:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good analysis

I think you're exactly right. LSU and Ohio State are comfortable names to have in a championship. And of course this is the real reason we need a playoff--because the old guard in charge will always want the comfortable names, "clearly flawed" teams like WVU will be left out, completely ignoring that USC, LSU, Oklahoma, etc. aren't exactly flawless. Or, like last year, a team called "Michigan" almost makes the title game while a team called "Louisville," which was arguably more deserving, gets no consideration whatsoever.

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.

by Gator Cub on Dec 3, 2007 7:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is why I Hate the System

Ultimately, what happened is that when the West Virginia and Missouri losses happened, voters decided to rig the system and put the team they thought "should" be in the championship game. (LSU) Seriously, there's no reason for LSU to make that big a jump over teams they were ranked behind otherwise, blowout over Va. Tech notwithstanding. This is basically the same thought process that screwed Michigan last year and I guess has now become accepted protocol.

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 0 recs

I agree

Apparently we're supposed to believe that LSU's win over Tennessee proves that they were the second best team all along. There's no good answer to this question. People whined when USC was #1 in both polls and got left out of the title game, so the process was changed so that the polls made up two thirds of it. Now that just gives the voters the opportunity to rig the system to put in the teams they think should be in.

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 on Dec 3, 2007 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It was everybody else losing

with a bit of "win over Tennessee." Frankly, that win, upper-mid-level on LSU's totem pole of pelts, is as good as any victory West Virginia had all year. It definitely didn't hurt that LSU spent more time at #1 this year--in two different spurts--than anyone else in the country. Perception is reality; note the difference in how ESPN and co. covered the possibility of LSU moving up in the final poll versus the possibility of Florida moving up last season. Florida was reasonably surprising last year, while LSU was pretty much playing with house money.

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.

by HooShotYa on Dec 3, 2007 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Everybody else losing"

Missouri and West Virginia were the only two teams of note to lose on Saturday. Boston College also lost, but they were already behind LSU in the rankings anyway and their loss wouldn't have made a difference either way. I watched the SEC championship and LSU's win over Tennessee was hardly impressive. Certainly, no less impressive than Virginia Tech's win over BC, but still it's hard to believe that LSU won anybody over with that game.

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 on Dec 3, 2007 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Even if you believe they deserved it...

...my big problem is that there was this groundswell of "well, LSU should be in the title game" philosophy that started with the announce teams on both the WVU/Pitt and OU/Missouri games, and went on through the ESPN wrap-up shows. I'm not saying that's why LSU suddenly became the consensus number-two, or even that it was wrong. But it was as if the loss to Arkansas which "eliminated them" never happened.

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 0 recs

Yeah, LSU jumped in rank

But isn't that what should ultimately happen? If LSU truly has the best resume of 2-loss teams (I think they do, and the computers help substantiate this belief), they should be number 2 regardless of where they were the previous week. This is what SMQ does in his not-a-power-poll rankings and it works pretty well. It would be nice to have some more consistency from the pollsters all season long, but I can't find fault with a group of voters getting their ballots "right" for the one that matters.

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.

by HooShotYa on Dec 3, 2007 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Be consistent

LSU's aggregate BCS COMPUTER rating went from 7th to 2nd this week too. If you've got a problem with it, don't single the humans out on this one.

by crepuscular on Dec 3, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As I said below...

If LSU was the next logical team to move into the spot if WVU and Missouri both lost, they should've been ranked #4 in the human polls. The fact they were fifth and seventh and moved to #2 for no appreciably compelling reason is the problem I had.

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 0 recs

The only thing that changed

Is that this poll mattered. LSU arguably had the worst win of the top three contenders in title games last Saturday, and thus going off of the previous polls shouldn't have had a shot, but it wasn't about that - this poll was just who you thought should play OSU, regardless of your previous vote.

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 0 recs

Georgia in the Sugar Bowl

"UGA has been a big favorite in the Sugar Bowl before, and it didn't work so well for the Dawgs last time."

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 0 recs

Agree

West Virginia got more mileage out of that one quarter in the Sugar Bowl (up 28-0 after the 1st if I recall) than any team I can remember.

by DoubleB on Dec 3, 2007 9:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, UGA lost

Hence, it didn't work out so well for them.

by SMQ on Dec 3, 2007 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

The simple fact West Virginia went into the Sugar Bowl and won is a big deal. Doesn't matter how it happened. It also was an aberration, though, as West Virginia has usually been good for one or two headscratching losses every year that keep them out of the title picture. (see USF in '06, Pitt in '07)

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 0 recs

DoubleB gets it.

Yes, they lost. But not too much should be made of it. And they weren't really a "big favorite".

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 0 recs

Let's talk about Hawaii's Schedule for a second...

First off... Just let me say that I do not think Hawaii is the best team in the nation. I don't even think they warrant anything inside the top 10 from what I have seen of them this year. However, some of this pummeling of their schedule has been ridiculous.

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...

"They took his hair, Tommy. Jesus that's strange. Why would they do that?"

by Brawndo on Dec 3, 2007 7:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That's another strike against the system.

Because with so few out-of-conference opportunities, talented mid-major teams will always have trouble scheduling BCS teams. And when they do, it's usually in disadvantageous 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deals. Now from an economic standpoint it makes more than perfect sense.

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 0 recs