College Football Rankings – “the” difficult question

[dcdevil2009]

I'd love to see BSU or TCU in the national championship game, but wouldn't be upset if they were paired in another bowl for the third straight year. Maybe I'm alone on this, but a rubber match between two of the best non-BCS programs over the last 5 years would make for a great game. Boise State's only loss in the past 3 years has been to TCU, while TCU has only lost to Boise, Utah, and Oklahoma.

On another note, what do people think about taking previous seasons into account when ranking teams? If you look at each season in a vacuum, I'd have to agree with the BCS computers and rank Auburn #1, with either BSU or Oregon at 2/3, and Bama as the best 1 loss team. Auburn's beaten better teams than the other unbeatens and has looked very impressive doing it. I'm not sure where I'd have BSU and Oregon since neither has played a very difficult schedule, while both have looked good doing it. However, if you take into account past seasons' performance, you'd have to have BSU at 1 then TCU/Oregon/Auburn in some order. TCU only lost to Boise; Oregon lost to BSU and Stanford; and Auburn lost several games last year.

[Wander]

Auburn's beaten better teams than the other unbeatens and has looked very impressive doing it.

They've beaten better teams, but they haven't looked more impressive doing it. Five of their eight games have been won by one possession. Oregon, Boise, and TCU have had much more impressive margins (but, against a lesser schedule). It's tough to tell which of these four teams is the best - and if they all keep winning, we'll never find out.

[A-Tex Devil]

I honestly think that if TCU beats Utah next weekend, barring a collapse by Utah, that win will keep them ahead of any 1 loss team in the BCS standings, including Alabama.

I agree, however, that a 1 loss 'Bama will pass Boise. But if you look at the current BCS standings, there are only 2 games left among top 10 teams -- TCU-Utah and Auburn-Alabama (although computers have LSU in top 10 too, so 'Bama-LSU is a top 10 game according to computers). Mizzou could certainly end up playing OU again in the Big XII championship game, so an OU win there might push the land thieves up, but right now, TCU has the second toughest opponent remaining. TCU has to love the fact that Utah is so highly rated by the computers (10) and the BCS (8) this year (and vice versa, frankly).

[dcdevil2009]

They've beaten better teams, but they haven't looked more impressive doing it. Five of their eight games have been won by one possession. Oregon, Boise, and TCU have had much more impressive margins (but, against a lesser schedule). It's tough to tell which of these four teams is the best - and if they all keep winning, we'll never find out.

Score-wise, no, Auburn hasn't looked better doing it. I admittedly haven't watched as much BSU or TCU as I have Auburn and Oregon, but Auburn and Cam Newton have looked really impressive. BSU's defense has looked better than Auburns, which may or may not be because of the level of competition each team has played. But if I had to chose between Auburn or BSU on a neutral site, I'd have to go with Auburn. Unfortunately, a lot of things might have to go BSU's way to prove me wrong. If only we could think of some way where the best teams in college football get together and play each other until there's only one winning team left.

[Wander]

If only we could think of some way where the best teams in college football get together and play each other until there's only one winning team left.

I always find it interesting to look at the theoretical playoff field. If the season ended now, my preferred format would look something like:

16 Troy at 1 Auburn
9 Oklahoma at 8 Utah

13 Pittsburgh at 4 TCU
12 Florida State at 5 Michigan State

14 East Carolina at 3 Boise State
11 Ohio State at 6 Missouri

10 Wisconsin at 7 Alabama
15 Northern Illinois at 2 Oregon

Wouldn't that be awesome?!

[A-Tex Devil]

I always find it interesting to look at the theoretical playoff field. If the season ended now, my preferred format would look something like:

16 Troy at 1 Auburn
9 Oklahoma at 8 Utah

13 Pittsburgh at 4 TCU
12 Florida State at 5 Michigan State

14 East Carolina at 3 Boise State
11 Ohio State at 6 Missouri

10 Wisconsin at 7 Alabama
15 Northern Illinois at 2 Oregon

Wouldn't that be awesome?!

Take Troy, Pitt, East Carolina, Northern Illinois out, then maybe. College football is different than college basketball. I don't want to see a Pitt or a Northern Illinois team that has 3 losses waste my TV time in a playoff. Utah, TCU, Boise, fine. But auto-qualifiers for a football playoff has to stop. I'd love a system that says 2 losses and you are out of the running (unless there is only 1 undefeated or 2 loss team).

[hughgs]

Take Troy, Pitt, East Carolina, Northern Illinois out, then maybe. College football is different than college basketball. I don't want to see a Pitt or a Northern Illinois team that has 3 losses waste my TV time in a playoff. Utah, TCU, Boise, fine. But auto-qualifiers for a football playoff has to stop. I'd love a system that says 2 losses and you are out of the running (unless there is only 1 undefeated or 2 loss team).

I completely agree. Because there are so few games played in football you can't just let teams in just because they won their conference. A play-off system needs a loss threshold to determine who should play.

Now, stop posting things I agree with. I'm supposed to disagree with your posts in this thread.

[Wander]

But auto-qualifiers for a football playoff has to stop.

Why? It's not a college basketball thing - every single other sport I can think of uses them.

[tommy]

Why? It's not a college basketball thing - every single other sport I can think of uses them.

One reason is it would essentially destroy the meaning of the regular season. College football has a great quality right now, which is that every game matters. Lose one and you're in serious danger of missing out for the prize at the end. Two losses and (except for the strangest of circumstances) you're out for sure. If you give automatic bids to conference winners, that sense of urgency and do-or-die is gone in the regular season.

Kind of like college hoops. Love it as we all do, you'd have to admit that, because of the size of the tournament and the automatic bids, the regular season has almost no true "must win" games except perhaps for bubble-type teams at the end of the season.

[Wander]

One reason is it would essentially destroy the meaning of the regular season. College football has a great quality right now, which is that every game matters. Lose one and you're in serious danger of missing out for the prize at the end. Two losses and (except for the strangest of circumstances) you're out for sure. If you give automatic bids to conference winners, that sense of urgency and do-or-die is gone in the regular season.

I'm calling BS. A 16 team playoff would still be the most exclusive postseason of any American team sport by a good margin, and thus would keep a high value on the regular season, especially by using home field advantage in the playoffs instead of some garbage bowls that no one gives a crap about. College football would easily have the most important regular season of any team sport in the country.

And, while I'll admit that some games like TCU-Utah would lose some meaning, overall on average regular season games would matter MUCH more under a playoff system with automatic bids. All the Florida State, Stanford, Big 10 tiebreaker games, and conference championship games, for example.

Again, there's a reason every single other sport does this.

[A-Tex Devil]

I'm calling BS. A 16 team playoff would still be the most exclusive postseason of any American team sport by a good margin, and thus would keep a high value on the regular season, especially by using home field advantage in the playoffs instead of some garbage bowls that no one gives a crap about. College football would easily have the most important regular season of any team sport in the country.

And, while I'll admit that some games like TCU-Utah would lose some meaning, overall on average regular season games would matter MUCH more under a playoff system with automatic bids. All the Florida State, Stanford, Big 10 tiebreaker games, and conference championship games, for example.

Again, there's a reason every single other sport does this.

I get your point. But I still don't think a 2 loss team should have a shot if it can be avoided, and ZERO 3 loss teams should have a shot. I am not arguing that the playoffs wouldn't be exciting, but there are 4, potentially 5, dog games in your scenario in the first round. Let's keep it at 8 or less teams and no auto-qualifiers, and I am on board.

I'll use LAX as an example (closest thing to football I can think of as far as number of games in reg season) -- wasn't there a year recently where a crappy Syracuse team or JHU team got in the tourney by winning their conference then went on a run to the final four? Yeah, it's a great story. Whatever. But the mediocre regular season is excused. College football is still the one sport where a single bad week can blow your chances, and there is some cache in that for me. Actually not some. A ton.

My favorite scenario is the NFL conference championship format with 5 or 6 teams.

Hell, let's do 6 teams, keep the same rotating bowl games and do this:

Week 1:
Fiesta 6. Mizzou v. 3. Boise
Rose 5. Michigan St. v. TCU

Week 2:
Orange: highest seeded survivor v. Oregon
Sugar: lowest seeded survivor v. Auburn

Week 3: BCS Championship in Glendale

It happens to work out swimmingly right now, but frankly, I can deal with the 7 seed complaints even when it doesn't.

[A-Tex Devil]

I wanted to add --- it was exciting to see Florida and Syracuse come out of nowhere to win the NCAAs this decade. But do I want a team like those, who each had "eh" regular seasons, to have a shot at a FOOTBALL national championship? No way.

They are different sports and different dynamics

[tommy]

I'm calling BS. A 16 team playoff would still be the most exclusive postseason of any American team sport by a good margin, and thus would keep a high value on the regular season, especially by using home field advantage in the playoffs instead of some garbage bowls that no one gives a crap about. College football would easily have the most important regular season of any team sport in the country.

And, while I'll admit that some games like TCU-Utah would lose some meaning, overall on average regular season games would matter MUCH more under a playoff system with automatic bids. All the Florida State, Stanford, Big 10 tiebreaker games, and conference championship games, for example.

Again, there's a reason every single other sport does this.

Hey, I want a playoff too. I just want one that is truly exclusive, so that the regular season will retain meaning and excitement. To me, that means a max of 8 teams, and no automatic bids (which is why the BCS conference commissioners would never go for it).

If you've got 16 teams and automatic bids, so many huge regular season games would just be drained of their excitement, because the outcome wouldn't really matter. For instance, the Stanford-Oregon game earlier this year. Two best teams in the Pac-10. Winner is in the hunt for the national title, loser is in all likelihood out. In a 16 team playoff, where both teams have kept winning, they're both gonna make the playoff, so losing that "big" game is really no big deal.

This week: Michigan State-Iowa. Michigan State loses under the current system, they're out of the championship hunt. They win, they're very much in it. In a 16 team playoff scenario, if they lose, both teams are probably going to make the field, so what's the big deal, especially to MSU?

Finally: Auburn-Alabama. On the horizon as the hugest regular season game of the year. Winner will go to the SEC Championship game and who knows, maybe the BCS Championship game. Loser is out. If there's a 16 teamer, they're both in, win or lose. Think that wouldn't take some steam out of that game? It would.

So I agree that a playoff is desirable, but it's got to be small and it has to be exclusive enough that the regular season games aren't drained of their importance and excitement. That's what's happened in college hoops. Other than us die-hards, most sports fans don't give much of a rat's patootie about the regular season, because they know all the good teams will be in the big dance. They just kinda tune out and wait for March Madness. I don't want to see that happen to football.

[johnb]

If you're getting rid of the bowl system, there's no real reason not to have a bunch of games (I'd go with 8 opening round games, at least). You think that a 16 team playoff would take the steam out of Auburn/Alabama or Texas/Oklahoma or Michigan/Ohio State? Those teams could have losing records and still try to run through brick walls to win that game. Even Stanford/Oregon, which lacks the big-time history of those other rivalries, would mean a lot to the players involved, especially if there's a chance for a conference championship. Possibly a handful of teams (OU, UT, Bama, etc) might think it can lose a game or two and still make the playoff, but that doesn't lead teams like Duke bball to give away games at the end of the season. And, anyway, football isn't like basketball, where teams can phone it in--phone in playing football, and you'll get crushed. And football is VERY different from lacrosse since one sport has dozens and dozens of very well-funded programs that appeal to large segments of the population, while the other has, well, none.

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting that Duke coach David Cutcliffe is a voter for the USA Today/ESPN Poll. He said his ballot this week was:

1. Boise State
2. Oregon
3. Auburn

Asked about his vote for Boise, he said he had two reasons -- what he saw of the gamefilms if their victory over Virginia Tech convinced him that they were a truely impressive team.

Secondly, he called first-year San Jose Coach Mike MacIntyre -- his longtime defensive coordinator -- to get a West Coast perspective.

Macintyre is uniquely qualified to comment, since his team has played Alabama, Boise, Wisconsin and Utah (also Nevada). Cut did relate exactly what MacIntyre told him, but he did say MacIntyrie's comments played a big role in his decision to rank Boise No. 1.

BTW, looking a scores (and I know that comparative scores can be misleading) -- San Jose lost at Alabama, 48-3 ... only lost 27-14 at Wisconsin ... lost 56-3 at Utah and lost 48-0 at home against Boise (Boise didn't score in the fourth quarter).

My take is that if there are two unbeatens from the big conferences ahead of Boise and TCU/Utah, I'll give them an edge based on their schedule. But if Boise is the last unbeaten or one of the last two, I strongly believe they deserve to be in the national title game before any one-loss team.

They -- and TCU and Utah -- have proved they belonged over the last few years. We're not talking about one such win (like Boise over Va Tech), we're talking about a succession of wins -- I especially love how the SEC types try to excuse what happened in the Sugar Bowl when Utah manhandled an Alabama team that had barely lost to national champion Florida ... the Gators are lucky they didn't have to go up against the unbeaten Utes in the title game.

[A-Tex Devil]

If you're getting rid of the bowl system, there's no real reason not to have a bunch of games (I'd go with 8 opening round games, at least). You think that a 16 team playoff would take the steam out of Auburn/Alabama or Texas/Oklahoma or Michigan/Ohio State? Those teams could have losing records and still try to run through brick walls to win that game. Even Stanford/Oregon, which lacks the big-time history of those other rivalries, would mean a lot to the players involved, especially if there's a chance for a conference championship. Possibly a handful of teams (OU, UT, Bama, etc) might think it can lose a game or two and still make the playoff, but that doesn't lead teams like Duke bball to give away games at the end of the season. And, anyway, football isn't like basketball, where teams can phone it in--phone in playing football, and you'll get crushed. And football is VERY different from lacrosse since one sport has dozens and dozens of very well-funded programs that appeal to large segments of the population, while the other has, well, none.

In my system, you could still have the bowls, but just make the BCS bowls a 6 team playoff. Easy peezy, lemon squeezie. Oly is right, though, major conferences won't go for anything beyond a +1 (which I'd be grudgingly happy with) without automatic bids.

I don't disagree with anything you've said above about players giving their all. But if Mark Ingram is banged up for the Iron Bowl and both teams know they are making a 16 team playoff win or lose, do you play him?

[tommy]

And beyond that, sure, the Bama-Auburn game, Michigan-Ohio State, and other big rivalries will always feel important, especially to fans of those teams. But I'm saying there's no way they'd be nearly as important as if they were playing for a spot in an exclusive championship tournament, as in "winner in, loser out." Imagine Michigan-Ohio State with that on the line as opposed to sure, traditional big game, but win or lose they're both in.

You could really say the same thing about basketball. Sure, UNC-Duke is always big -- especially to fans of those teams. But if UNC-Duke played for a spot in the tournament, meaning winner in and loser out, don't you think it would be a tad bigger, not only to fans of those teams but to all fans of the sport? Have to be. I'm not advocating for a return to the "one team per conference" rule for the tournament, not at all. But hypothetically if there was a return to that system (which of course will never happen for financial reasons), those key rivalry games would be much more intense than even they are under the current system, where, with regard to getting in the tournament (as opposed to seeding), the regular season has almost no meaning in the national championship race.

[A-Tex Devil]

So while we are complaining and groaning about the BCS, what does everyone think of the actions of "Big Game" Bob Stoops at the end of the Mizzou loss. He pretty much admitted giving up with 2:49 left and punting from inside his 10 so Mizzou couldn't make it a double digit game -- implying that this loss would then not be considered as bad as Alabama's loss to South Carolina in the eyes of voters at the end of the season should OU be in a stew of 1 loss teams trying to get to Glendale.

My feelings on this are pretty clear given my avatar, but is his logic in the right place even though his cajones aren't?

[sagegrouse]

My earlier post (previous page) suggested that to promote anarchy among the elite in college football, we should want (a) all BCS teams to have at least two losses and (b) two of Boise, TCU and Utah to remain undefeated. This way, the BCS folks will have to go to elaborate diversion schemes to ensure that the championship stays with the big-spending goliaths of the gridiron. Maybe they will even agree to a meaningful play-off, of which this thread has produced a number of good ideas.

We are on our way!

There were four undefeateds (Auburn, Oregon, Mizzou and Mich. State) and 10 one-loss teams after last week. Not there is one fewer, as FSU managed to lose to NC State. So neither the ACC nor the Big East have any teams with fewer than two losses.

Here are the big games tomorrow:

Undefeated Mizzou is at one-loss Nebraska. I expect Mizzou to lose, but in either case one of the leaders will drop down a notch.

Oregon is at USC. USC is really down this year, but don't be surprised if the Trojans win.

Auburn is at Ole Miss. Could be an upset, but I don't expect it.

Michigan State is at tough Iowa. This is a must-lose for the DBR Parlay Card. The Big Ten is weak, and this is one of Michigan State's most challenging games.

Oklahoma State is at tough K-State. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Wildcats beat the Cowboys.

Stanford is at You-Dub. The Huskies could be a load at home.

Arizona is at up-and-down UCLA. Another possible upset.

In the "no-prob" bin are --
Ohio State at Minnesota
Oklahoma vs Colorado

Byes include Wisconsin, Bama and LSU (all with one loss).

If there are some upsets, we could be left with two unbeatens and only six one-loss teams.

sagegrouse

[sagegrouse]

Here is an update on the DBR Total Anarchy Parlay Card:

Undefeated Mizzou and Michigan State lost -- actually, were exposed for being less than the best.

FSU also lost. Now there are two undefeateds (Auburn and Oregon). Oregon was impressive against USC at the Coliseum.

There are 11 BCS teams with one loss and that number is sure to dwindle.

sagegrouse

My earlier post (previous page) suggested that to promote anarchy among the elite in college football, we should want (a) all BCS teams to have at least two losses and (b) two of Boise, TCU and Utah to remain undefeated. This way, the BCS folks will have to go to elaborate diversion schemes to ensure that the championship stays with the big-spending goliaths of the gridiron. Maybe they will even agree to a meaningful play-off, of which this thread has produced a number of good ideas.

We are on our way!

There were four undefeateds (Auburn, Oregon, Mizzou and Mich. State) and 10 one-loss teams after last week. Not there is one fewer, as FSU managed to lose to NC State. So neither the ACC nor the Big East have any teams with fewer than two losses.

Here are the big games tomorrow:

Undefeated Mizzou is at one-loss Nebraska. I expect Mizzou to lose, but in either case one of the leaders will drop down a notch.

Oregon is at USC. USC is really down this year, but don't be surprised if the Trojans win.

Auburn is at Ole Miss. Could be an upset, but I don't expect it.

Michigan State is at tough Iowa. This is a must-lose for the DBR Parlay Card. The Big Ten is weak, and this is one of Michigan State's most challenging games.

Oklahoma State is at tough K-State. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Wildcats beat the Cowboys.

Stanford is at You-Dub. The Huskies could be a load at home.

Arizona is at up-and-down UCLA. Another possible upset.

In the "no-prob" bin are --
Ohio State at Minnesota
Oklahoma vs Colorado

Byes include Wisconsin, Bama and LSU (all with one loss).

If there are some upsets, we could be left with two unbeatens and only six one-loss teams.

sagegrouse