2008 BCS Rankings

[OH10]

Another way of looking at this is that the BCS system has rewarded Oklahoma for playing TCU and Cincinnati, a pair of top-15 teams, in their non-conference schedule.

But aren't you then beholden to the qualifications of your non-conference opponents? I mean, who thought Cincinnati would win the Big East in 2008 when Oklahoma made that schedule? Would anyone have looked at that non-conference schedule and said, "whoa, Cincinnati is a landmine?"

Who knew Arkansas would be this bad when Texas put them on the schedule? And when does Oklahoma get criticized for scheduling FCS Chattanooga, a team that royally sucks?

Back to the Bearcats. Is Cincy really a big victory? I mean, come on... let's not go accusing the Big East of being a conference worth winnning.

 

[BB73]

But aren't you then beholden to the qualifications of your non-conference opponents? I mean, who thought Cincinnati would win the Big East in 2008 when Oklahoma made that schedule? Would anyone have looked at that non-conference schedule and said, "whoa, Cincinnati is a landmine?"

Who knew Arkansas would be this bad when Texas put them on the schedule? And when does Oklahoma get criticized for scheduling FCS Chattanooga, a team that royally sucks?

Back to the Bearcats. Is Cincy really a big victory? I mean, come on... let's not go accusing the Big East of being a conference worth winnning.

I agree that they probably never imagined that they'd end up with a win over a top-15 team when they scheduled that game. But I'm talking about how meaningful non-conference wins that help teams succeed in the BCS system could positively influence future scheduling.

If other teams could see that a win over a couple of top-15 teams helped Oklahoma get into the BCS top-2 this year, they may be inclined to schedule teams in the future that they think could be top-10 or top-15 teams when they play them.

That could be good for college football. A system that only rewards conference champions by placing them into a playoff system could cause teams to not want to play tough non-conference opponents, so they don't get beat up physically outside of conference play.

But perish the thought that the mechanisms of the BCS could actually be causing anything positive to happen - it's not fashionable to point out anything that supports such an argument.

Last year, LSU was helped by the win over Va Tech, who actually ended up #1 in the computer rankings before the bowl games.

This year, TCU is #10 in the BCS computer averages right now, and Cincinnati is #15. Those two wins are a big reason that Oklahoma is #1 in the BCS computers now and Texas is #2 (they're both ahead of Bama).

I'm not debating how good TCU and Cincy really are. I'm just saying that those numbers in the computers are why Oklahoma is #2 in the BCS right now - Texas had a slight lead in the 2/3 of the BCS formula determined by the 2 human polls, the computers put Oklahoma above Texas.

And if other teams see that beating ranked non-conference teams is what causes success in the BCS, that could be a good thing for future non-conference schedules. And I've got to post it, because you're sure not going to hear that on SportsCenter.

 

[OH10]

But perish the thought that the mechanisms of the BCS could actually be causing anything positive to happen - it's not fashionable to point out anything that supports such an argument.

I suppose I'd buy this argument more if the BCS weren't created over 10 years ago and teams like Ohio State and Oklahoma are still scheduling Youngstown St. and Chattanooga. (not to mention the annual beatdown of an in-state opponent). I don't even count pointless victories in the records anymore. It's like Ohio State is actually 8-2 this year, rather than 10-2.

And of course, not to completely highjack the thread away from Okie-Texas, but it's not as if an alternative solution (cough, cough, playoff) would reward hack scheduling anymore than what we have right now. Or that it would fail to reward teams for playing games like Ohio State vs. USC.

 

[ScriptOhio]

#1 Alabama
#2 Oklahoma
#3 Texas
#10 Ohio State--the computers do not like us at all.

It gets worse; they must really hate USC.

The computers have Bosie State (.8500) rated above USC (.7300).

FOX Sports on MSN - COLLEGE FOOTBALL - Polls

ESPN - College Football BCS Standings, NCAA College Football BCS Standings, NCAA Football BCS Standings

Give me a [censored]ing break. Anybody out there (i.e. Jeff Sagarin, Anderson & Hester, Richard Billingsley, Colley Matrix, Kenneth Massey, and/or Dr. Peter Wolfe) really think that Utah is a better team than (i.e. could beat) USC? With rankings like that the computer ratings have zero credibility.

 

[Boilers Fan]

Oklahoma jumped Texas. They just showed it on Fox NFL postgame show.

Let the chaos begin.

 

[gracelhink]

It gets worse; they must really hate USC.

The computers have Bosie State (.8500) rated above USC (.7300).

FOX Sports on MSN - COLLEGE FOOTBALL - Polls

ESPN - College Football BCS Standings, NCAA College Football BCS Standings, NCAA Football BCS Standings

Give me a [censored]ing break. Anybody out there (i.e. Jeff Sagarin, Anderson & Hester, Richard Billingsley, Colley Matrix, Kenneth Massey, and/or Dr. Peter Wolfe) really think that Utah is a better team than (i.e. could beat) USC? With rankings like that the computer ratings have zero credibility.

These are the ratings given by the individual computers.
Billingsly is the only computer that ranks USC over Utah.
Massey's computer numbers are highly suspect.​

from WWW[URL="http://www.BCSFOOTBALL.ORG"].BCSFOOTBALL.ORG[/URL]

. . . . . . . .Anderson & Hester Billingsley Colley/Matrix Massey Sagarin Wolfe
1. Alabama (12-0) . . 25 . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . .23. . . . . . 21 . . . 22 . . . 22
2.Oklahoma (11-1). 22 . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . 25 . . . 25 . . . 25
3.Texas (11-1) . . . . 23 . . . . . . . 22 . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . 23 . . . 24. . . 24
4.Florida (11-1) . . . 20 . . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . 22 . . . . . . 20 . . . 20 . . . 19
5.So. Cal (10-1) . . . 17. . . . . . . 21 . . . . . .19 . . . . . . 19 . . . .18 . . . 17 ​

6.Utah (12-0). . . . . 24 . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . 21. . . . . . 22 . . . .21 . . . 21

7.Tex Tech (11-1). . 21 . . . . . . .20 . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . 24 . . . .23 . . . 23 ​

8. Penn St (11-1) . . 18 . . . . . . .16 . . . . . . 17 . . . . . . 16 . . . . 16. . . 18

9.Boise St (12-0) . . 19 . . . . . . .18 . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . 18 . . . . .19 . . .20 ​

10.Ohio St (10-2) . . 16 . . . . . . .17 . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . .11. . . . 13 . . .14
11.T C U (10-2) . . . . 15 . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . .17 . . . . 17 . . .16
12.Ball State (12-0).13 . . . . . . .15 . . . . . .15 . . . . . . .12 . . . . .9 . . . .15
13. Cincinnati (10-2).12 . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . 9 . . . . . 11 . . .12
14.Okl State (9-3) . . . 7 . . . . . . .12 . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . 13 . . . . .15 . . .13

15.Georgia Tech (9-3)10 . . . . . 11 . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . 15 . . . .14 . . . . 9 ​

The computer rankings percentage is calculated by dropping the highest and lowest ranking for each team and then dividing the remaining total by 100 (the maximum possible points). The six computer ranking providers are Anderson & Hester, Richard Billingsley, Colley Matrix, Kenneth Massey, Jeff Sagarin and Peter Wolfe. Each computer ranking provider accounts for schedule strength within its formula.

 

[WoodyWorshiper]

Another way of looking at this is that the BCS system has rewarded Oklahoma for playing TCU and Cincinnati, a pair of top-15 teams, in their non-conference schedule.

If the BCS would have results like that more often, encouraging teams to schedule better non-conference opponents, it would have something tangible going for it.

Jwins, I think the comment on the previous page may have referred to the old Big Ten rule that had conference ties decided by a vote of the Athletic Directors (as in 1973).

I have no problem with the BCS being used when there's a 3-way tie with no head-to-head winner.

Oklahoma is fortunate that Texas Tech was able to complete their comeback against Baylor, or the 2-way tie would have sent Texas.

Your last sentence says it all. Throw out the fact that Texas beat Oklahoma head to head. The bottom line here was that if the team that Texas lost to had lost yesterday (which actually would have hurt Texas in the computers) then the computers would have never had to come into play, and texas would be in. How F'ed up is that?

 

[Buck33Eye11]

If things now play out as expected (Florida beating 'Bama and OU beating Mizzou) I think we're in for one hell of a championship game.

A few weeks ago I would have said I think Texas is the best team in the Big 12, but I'm not so sure about that anymore. OU has definitely shown me something. From what I saw, UT caught OU on an off day and if we were to see them play again, both at their absolute best, I think OU wins.

Not that that matters, or should, but as a fan I don't mind seeing OU get the nod. They're the better team, imo, and I really think we'll be seeing the two best teams in the title game in Florida and OU.

Barring epic failure next weekend in LA, does this now make it highly likely that tOSU gets a really pissed off Texas in a BCS game?

 

[xcrunner]

If things now play out as expected (Florida beating 'Bama and OU beating Mizzou) I think we're in for one hell of a championship game.

A few weeks ago I would have said I think Texas is the best team in the Big 12, but I'm not so sure about that anymore. OU has definitely shown me something. From what I saw, UT caught OU on an off day and if we were to see them play again, both at their absolute best, I think OU wins.

Not that that matters, or should, but as a fan I don't mind seeing OU get the nod. They're the better team, imo, and I really think we'll be seeing the two best teams in the title game in Florida and OU.

Barring epic failure next weekend in LA, does this now make it highly likely that tOSU gets a really pissed off Texas in a BCS game?

Since the texas game, Oklahoma has given up 31 points to kansas, 35 to kansas state, 28 to nebraska and texas a&m each, and 41 to oklahoma state....

And you like them more?

 

[Taosman]

If a Big XII team plays an SEC team expect another ugly game.
The top defense in the Big XII is Texas at #50!
Oklahoma is #66 rated defense in the country.
http://statistics.ncaafootball.com/...otball&page=cfoot/stat/ncaa-team-totaldef.htm

 

[3074326]

Since the texas game, Oklahoma has given up 31 points to kansas, 35 to kansas state, 28 to nebraska and texas a&m each, and 41 to oklahoma state....

And you like them more?

Do you see anyone stopping that offense? The defense is horrible, yes.

I think this is going to result in a debate with no end, similar to debates in about 23 other threads. :p

 

[xcrunner]

Do you see anyone stopping that offense? The defense is horrible, yes.

I think this is going to result in a debate with no end, similar to debates in about 23 other threads. :p

I shan't debate it then... And we shall agree to disagree :)

Although I do agree with you that that offense is going to be scary hard to stop.

 

[Buck33Eye11]

Since the texas game, Oklahoma has given up 31 points to kansas, 35 to kansas state, 28 to nebraska and texas a&m each, and 41 to oklahoma state....

And you like them more?

Suppose I should have clarified..I think they outscore everyone you put on the same field (outside of UF). Clearly defense doesn't win championships anymore :)

I mean, OU clearly didn't play their best game vs. UT on either side of the ball and still put up 35 points against the best defense in the Big 12; and OU's defense is clearly capable of shutting down an elite offense (TTech) when they're playing their best. Given what I've seen from OU the past few weeks I just think they're better.

I'm not crying for head-to-head justice or anything and purely from a fan POV I have zero issue with how things played out.

edit: beat me to it

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

I am opposed to having Oklahoma selected over Texas just as I was opposed to having a rematch with Michigan in the title game a couple of years ago. I think the arguments for the selection of OU and Michigan are based on the premse that somehow, a more arbitrary way involving the comparison of results against a chosen third party, which in this case is TT (keep in mind that there are other common opponents, but only TT is commonly mentioned), would produce a more fair result than direct competition. TT is out. What we want to determine is whether OU is better Texas. Please let the scoreboard resolve this issue and not some arbitrary pundits.

 

[3074326]

I shan't debate it then... And we shall agree to disagree :)

Although I do agree with you that that offense is going to be scary hard to stop.

I see both sides of the argument, we'll be able to see which one's right in about a month and a half.