College Football Rankings – “the” difficult question

[4decadedukie]

Over the last weeks, excellent, highly-ranked teams (Ohio State, Nebraska, Alabama are good examples) have been defeated; however, Boise State and TCU continue to win (usually convincingly). Having watched Boise and frequently traveling to Fort Worth (in fact, always staying within a mile of TCU’s campus), I have considerable affection and RESPECT for both programs. IMHO, they are national-class programs that deserve to be seriously considered for Championship opportunities (think Butler in basketball).

On the other hand, critics reasonably highlight the “who do they play?” argument and emphasis the differences between a top Big 10 or SEC contender – who must face daunting opponents almost weekly throughout the core of the conference’s schedule – and a one like Boise’s, where perhaps a fifth of the regular season's games are against “first-tier” competitors.

I solicit your opinions on this consequential intercollegiate football issue.

[brevity]

Strength of schedule is only relevant when making a comparison:
1. Among teams that are undefeated.
2. Among teams that are not.

But there is no comparison between a team that is undefeated and a team with at least one loss (by the end of the regular season). The players of the undefeated team have done everything that has been asked of them; the players of a one-loss team have not.

The fact that this is a minority opinion tells me how stupid most college football fans, experts, and voters are. They don't look at it from the players' point of view. They look at the situation like athletic directors, or whoever plans the schedule a year or more in advance. This fantasy sports mindset is not only ridiculous, but irrelevant.

So really, while the question may seem difficult, the answer isn't difficult at all.

[Olympic Fan]

Count me among those who think that an undefeated Boise or TCU deserves to be in the national title game picture AHEAD of any one-loss BCS conference teams.

The BCS is a cartel -- designed to keep most of the postseason money (and honors) in the six power conferences. That's why they fight the playoff system so strongly -- playoffs would actually bring MORE money than the bowl system, but it would be distrubted evenly among all Division 1 teams and not gobbled up by the superpowers.

To that end, they've fought to exclude outsiders such as Boise and TCU and Utah (don't forget them). Only public pressure has driven them to open a crack in the BCS door to allow one or two such teams to participate in the secondary BCS bowls.

The argument is that there schedules aren't good enough ... yet who makes sure they don't get to schedule enough heavyweight teams to counter their lightweight conferences? When given the chance, these teams do very well ... I still remember a couple of years ago when Florida barely edged Alabama in the SEC title game, then went on to win the national title ... then Utah CRUSHED Bama in the Sugar Bowl. But it's not just one game, it happens time and time again -- how many top teams has Boise beaten in the last five years?

I was ticked off last year when the BCS matched Boise and TCU in the Fiesta Bowl. They were making sure that the two non-BCS powers didn't get the chance to prove their prowess by beating two BCS powers. It was a good test for both teams -- and Boise's victory is the reason I have them ahead of TCU in my personal poll.

Now the BCS powers are going to be moving heaven and earth to make sure that neither Boise nor TCU makes it to the title game. You'll hear the crescendo of arguments -- they don't blah a week-in,week out schedule, blah-blah-blah. Okay, I can see it if two out of Oregon, Oklahoma or one of the SEC powers makes it to 12-0 ... but if Boise/TCU are still undefeated and only one BCS conference team is unbeaten ... no way they should be excluded.

My real questiion is what happens if Boise and TCU are the last two unbeatens?

BTW: I'm told that when the first BCS Poll is released today that Boise State will be No. 1 ... but that because the schedule the rest of the way is not that great (they've already played their two toughest opponents -- Va Tech and Oregon State) there's a good chance they fall as the season plays out.

It will be interesting to watch, but I'm definitely in the Boise/TCU corner.

[snowdenscold]

Strength of schedule is only relevant when making a comparison:
1. Among teams that are undefeated.
2. Among teams that are not.

But there is no comparison between a team that is undefeated and a team with at least one loss (by the end of the regular season). The players of the undefeated team have done everything that has been asked of them; the players of a one-loss team have not.

Surely your argument breaks down at some point. To go to the extreme, if all the teams I have beaten are all winless for the season and just terrible terrible teams, what have I proven? Sure I am 'undefeated' but it has lost some meaning along the way. Or in basketball - Duke could play 30 games against NC Central and UNC Greensboro and win by a hefty margine each game, but I wouldn't feel very good about exclaiming "We're #1!".

Now few examples are this black/white, so it becomes a judgment call for everything else in between.

Now does this mean I favor excluding TCU and BSU from the NC game? No - but I at least think it's open for subjective debate.

[JasonEvans]

Strength of schedule is only relevant when making a comparison:
1. Among teams that are undefeated.
2. Among teams that are not.

But there is no comparison between a team that is undefeated and a team with at least one loss (by the end of the regular season). The players of the undefeated team have done everything that has been asked of them; the players of a one-loss team have not.

The fact that this is a minority opinion tells me how stupid most college football fans, experts, and voters are. They don't look at it from the players' point of view. They look at the situation like athletic directors, or whoever plans the schedule a year or more in advance. This fantasy sports mindset is not only ridiculous, but irrelevant.

So really, while the question may seem difficult, the answer isn't difficult at all.

By your logic, the Carolina Panthers are far, far worse than Boise State. After all, Carolina is winless against their schedule while Boise has beaten down all the teams on their schedule.

And yet we all know that a game between those two teams would result in a 40+ point massacre of Boise.

Yes, my example is absurd but is the difference in San Jose State and Alabama much smaller than the difference in Alabama and the Carolina Panthers?

I see your argument that Boise State has done all they can against the schedule that has been presented to them. I applaud them for doing that. But, to blindly state that winning all your games against your schedule makes you better than a team that loses one game against a far tougher schedule is taking the human element out of the equation. Until we have a playoff where the results can be determined on the field, I think we have to allow for human observation to play some kind of role.

--Jason "a playoff would make things much easier" Evans

[SuperTurkey]

Jason "a playoff would make things much easier" Evans

That's why a Boise/TCU championship would be so delicious. Let the AQ conferences reap what they've sown and maybe finally convince some of the power brokers by hitting them in their wallets.

It's hard to see a 1-loss SEC champion not jumping over TCU, though. The way Bama has been playing, it's easy to see that happening. Oregon, LSU, and Auburn also need to drop at least one.

[hughgs]

By your logic, the Carolina Panthers are far, far worse than Boise State. After all, Carolina is winless against their schedule while Boise has beaten down all the teams on their schedule.

And yet we all know that a game between those two teams would result in a 40+ point massacre of Boise.

Here is where the whole non-play-off argument breaks down.

The current argument against a full play-off system is based on the idea that there is a play-off system, it's just between two teams. In order to figure out those two teams there are a bunch of metrics one of which is how the teams are ranked.

Assumably teams are ranked based on the perception of how they would fair against other teams. So, the voters expected Alabama to beat all but one team in the nation. Same with OSU. But, we see that that doesn't always happen. So, while we may think we know the outcome of the games, no one really knows. Which gets back to the main point that there needs to be a play-off system.

And if the teams are not ranked based on the perception that the number one and number two teams can beat all the other teams then a play-off system needs to be created that accounts for how the voters (and the statistics) expect teams to fair.

[jimsumner]

If college basketball were run the same way, Kansas and Kentucky would have played for the 2010 NCAA title. But Duke would have received a nice bowl bid.

I seriously doubt whether Boise State or TCU would win the SEC or Big 10, or even finish in the top three. But part of me hopes for a Boise State/TCU title game simply as a blow against a system for which I have little respect.

[OldPhiKap]

If college basketball were run the same way, Kansas and Kentucky would have played for the 2010 NCAA title. But Duke would have received a nice bowl bid.

I seriously doubt whether Boise State or TCU would win the SEC or Big 10, or even finish in the top three. But part of me hopes for a Boise State/TCU title game simply as a blow against a system for which I have little respect.

From your keyboard to God's ear.

[hughgs]

If college basketball were run the same way, Kansas and Kentucky would have played for the 2010 NCAA title. But Duke would have received a nice bowl bid.

I seriously doubt whether Boise State or TCU would win the SEC or Big 10, or even finish in the top three. But part of me hopes for a Boise State/TCU title game simply as a blow against a system for which I have little respect.

But, without playing the games there is no way of knowing. And, as Alabama and OSU showed, the mere fact that experts doubt the ability of teams to win doesn't mean that teams like Boise State and TCU wouldn't win those games.

[sagegrouse]

Strength of schedule is only relevant when making a comparison:
1. Among teams that are undefeated.
2. Among teams that are not.

But there is no comparison between a team that is undefeated and a team with at least one loss (by the end of the regular season). The players of the undefeated team have done everything that has been asked of them; the players of a one-loss team have not.

The fact that this is a minority opinion tells me how stupid most college football fans, experts, and voters are. They don't look at it from the players' point of view. They look at the situation like athletic directors, or whoever plans the schedule a year or more in advance. This fantasy sports mindset is not only ridiculous, but irrelevant.

So really, while the question may seem difficult, the answer isn't difficult at all.

You said it, I didn't. But your logic holds that the quality of a college football team with regard to a national championship divides neatly along the watershed of "one loss" versus "no losses." And your path to this conclusion is that the national champion should be judged totally on a team achieving the tasks (winning the games) assigned to them by its school and its conference, by whatever means. No matter how difficult or easy the schedule, and no matter how formidable a one-loss team might be.

You would, therefore, reject as BCS champs LSU in 2003 and 2007 and Florida in 2006 and 2008.

It is probably unnecessary to point out that your conclusion does not follow from your premise -- at least, not in this universe.

Yet you declare all those who disagree with you as "stupid."

I hereby sentence you to.... Oh, well, nevermind.

sagegrouse
'Actually, a few months with the self-effacing folks in Canada might help.'

[Dukeface88]

I seriously doubt whether Boise State or TCU would win the SEC or Big 10, or even finish in the top three. But part of me hopes for a Boise State/TCU title game simply as a blow against a system for which I have little respect.

This sums up my feelings as well. On the one hand, a TCU/Boise championship game might bring us a step closer to a playoff. On the other, as long as we're stuck with the current system, I don't think it would be fair to put them in over teams that are IMO better.

However, I think it may be a it premature to crown Boise or TCU. There are still 6 udefated AQ schools (Auburn, LSU, Oregon, Mizzou, Oklahoma and MSU). If any of those teams can run the table, I don't think that this should be an issue.

Side issue: let's say Boise, TCU and one of the AQ's go undefeated. Who do you give the nod to? BSU seems to get more press and has the higher ranking, but I'd argue TCU has a tougher schedule.

[mattman91]

Playoffs.

[jimsumner]

Playoffs.

You mean like 1-AA football, D-2 football, D-3 football, soccer, cross-country, field hockey, volleyball, swimming and diving, basketball, ice hockey, wrestling, lacrosse, track and field, baseball and golf?

Gee, how would they handle the logistics? It's so complicated and all. And they might have to miss classes.

Sure, the University of Montana football team can travel 2,000 miles to play a play-off football game. But Ohio State? No way.

And what about the bowls? So many people plan their holidays around going to Shreveport to see two 6-6 teams play in a half-empty stadium? Mess with all that tradition? Sacrilege.

A very successful former ACC football coach-not at Duke-strongly supports the current system because it benefits coaches. He told me that half the coaches who coach in bowl games end the season with a win. All of the coaches who coach in the NCAA Tournament end the season with a loss. Except one.

So, the coaches love the bowl system.

But most of those bowl games are meaningless exhibitions, quickly forgotten. All of those basketball coaches whose seasons end in the NCAA Tournament end their seasons in games that actually mean something--inasmuch as any of these games mean anything in a bigger sense--and lead to a legitimate NCAA championship decided on the court.

My two cents.

[Acymetric]

You mean like 1-AA football, D-2 football, D-3 football, soccer, cross-country, field hockey, volleyball, swimming and diving, basketball, ice hockey, wrestling, lacrosse, track and field, baseball and golf?

Gee, how would they handle the logistics? It's so complicated and all. And they might have to miss classes.

Sure, the University of Montana football team can travel 2,000 miles to play a play-off football game. But Ohio State? No way.

And what about the bowls? So many people plan their holidays around going to Shreveport to see two 6-6 teams play in a half-empty stadium? Mess with all that tradition? Sacrilege.

A very successful former ACC football coach-not at Duke-strongly supports the current system because it benefits coaches. He told me that half the coaches who coach in bowl games end the season with a win. All of the coaches who coach in the NCAA Tournament end the season with a loss. Except one.

So, the coaches love the bowl system.

But most of those bowl games are meaningless exhibitions, quickly forgotten. All of those basketball coaches whose seasons end in the NCAA Tournament end their seasons in games that actually mean something--inasmuch as any of these games mean anything in a bigger sense--and lead to a legitimate NCAA championship decided on the court.

My two cents.

Jim, you provide a lot of insight and information with your posts, but I think I appreciate this one the most. Spot on.

[4decadedukie]

you mean like 1-aa football, d-2 football, d-3 football, soccer, cross-country, field hockey, volleyball, swimming and diving, basketball, ice hockey, wrestling, lacrosse, track and field, baseball and golf?

Gee, how would they handle the logistics? It's so complicated and all. And they might have to miss classes.

Sure, the university of montana football team can travel 2,000 miles to play a play-off football game. But ohio state? No way.

And what about the bowls? So many people plan their holidays around going to shreveport to see two 6-6 teams play in a half-empty stadium? Mess with all that tradition? Sacrilege.

A very successful former acc football coach-not at duke-strongly supports the current system because it benefits coaches. He told me that half the coaches who coach in bowl games end the season with a win. All of the coaches who coach in the ncaa tournament end the season with a loss. Except one.

So, the coaches love the bowl system.

But most of those bowl games are meaningless exhibitions, quickly forgotten. All of those basketball coaches whose seasons end in the ncaa tournament end their seasons in games that actually mean something--inasmuch as any of these games mean anything in a bigger sense--and lead to a legitimate ncaa championship decided on the court.

My two cents.

Bravo!!!!

[hughgs]

You mean like 1-AA football, D-2 football, D-3 football, soccer, cross-country, field hockey, volleyball, swimming and diving, basketball, ice hockey, wrestling, lacrosse, track and field, baseball and golf?

Gee, how would they handle the logistics? It's so complicated and all. And they might have to miss classes.

Sure, the University of Montana football team can travel 2,000 miles to play a play-off football game. But Ohio State? No way.

And what about the bowls? So many people plan their holidays around going to Shreveport to see two 6-6 teams play in a half-empty stadium? Mess with all that tradition? Sacrilege.

A very successful former ACC football coach-not at Duke-strongly supports the current system because it benefits coaches. He told me that half the coaches who coach in bowl games end the season with a win. All of the coaches who coach in the NCAA Tournament end the season with a loss. Except one.

So, the coaches love the bowl system.

But most of those bowl games are meaningless exhibitions, quickly forgotten. All of those basketball coaches whose seasons end in the NCAA Tournament end their seasons in games that actually mean something--inasmuch as any of these games mean anything in a bigger sense--and lead to a legitimate NCAA championship decided on the court.

My two cents.

I would argue with you but I'm in complete agreement. I like to think that the big reason that the bowl system is still around is that the bowls themselves have enough influence to keep the NCAA from running a play-off system in I-A.

What the NCAA needs to do is roll the bowls into the play-offs. Rotate which bowls host which games. Maybe even set-up regional bowls so that teams don't have to travel too much. But, geez fix the system!

[ncexnyc]

Funny, but when fans of that nasty shade of blue try to downplay our team's National Championship by asking, "Well who did you beat?" The answer from most of you is, "We beat everyone we played."

I believe if the kids from either Boise State or TCU run the table then we should respect that fact and accept the way the system is set-up. They too, would have beaten, "Everyone they played."

[Greg_Newton]

Some interesting comments here. On a related note, here's the one thing I completely fail to understand right now: how are Boise and TCU ranked ahead of Auburn? I mean, 7-0 in the SEC with wins over South Carolina and Arkansas (a blowout)... what am I missing? Are they just being punished for needing OT to beat Clemson a few weeks ago?

[sagegrouse]

I would argue with you but I'm in complete agreement. I like to think that the big reason that the bowl system is still around is that the bowls themselves have enough influence to keep the NCAA from running a play-off system in I-A.

The bowls have agreements with the colleges independent of the NCAA. The NCAA gets zero bucks from the bowl games and earns most of its budget on the hoops tournament. The BCS teams don't really want to give up the current system -- especially to share revenue with the NCAA -- and, therefore, have the votes to keep it from happening.

I, for one, think there would be a lot more money in a college football playoff, especially since it is not either/or: Lesser bowls could continue independent of the playoffs and the premier bowls could rotate in and out of the semifinals and finals on a regular basis.

sagegrouse