Mid Majors, playoffs and who "deserves" what

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

While there are a few games slated for next weekend (December 5th) it's now late enough that the annual "we need a playoff in college football" discussion begins anew. This season provides playoff advocates even more ammunition in that the following teams are all undefeated:

Florida
Alabama
Texas
TCU
Cincinnati
Boise State

At this moment in time, we know for certain that one of Florida or Alabama will lose, pairing the undefeated list down to five. Likewise, it is still possible that Texas or Cincinnati lose as both play games this weekend. While both Texas and Cincinnati should be favored to win their respective games, neither contest is a "gimme." The Big XII Championship game has seen its fair share of upsets over the years. This may be Nebraska's chance to return the favor to Texas who upset them in 1996 when Nebraska was rated 3 behind Florida State and Arizona State. Likewise, there is some precedent for the final game of the Big East slate serving to ruin a title run, or perfect season. Indeed, such a contest has featured Pittsburgh before. In 2007 West Virginia was in the driver's seat for a bid to the National Title game before Pitt popped them 13-9. WVU was not undefeated at the time, as Cincinnati currently is, but the point remains - the 'stache can get it done.

In any event, We are assured that Alabama or Florida, Boise State and TCU will end the regular season undefeated. Depending on what happens in the Big XII Championship game, both Boise State and TCU will be "left out" As illustrated below, however, aside from surface arguments of "fairness" they probably should be.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BCS Top 25 and Strength of Schedule

1...Florida...........39
2...Alabama...........27
3...Texas.............49
4...TCU...............84
5...Cincinnati........77
6...Boise State.......91
7...Oregon.............5
8...Ohio State........60
9...Iowa..............47
10..Georgia Tech......17
11..Penn State........85
12..Virginia Tech.....11
13..LSU...............18
14..Brigham Young.....73
15..Pittsburgh........52
16..Oregon State......28
17..Miami (FL)........15
18..USC...............10
19..California........19
20..Oklahoma State....48
21..Houston..........103
22..Nebraska..........62
23..West Virginia.....40
24..Stanford..........16
25..Utah..............70

Mid Majors in Bold/red

The average SOS for a team rated in the BCS top 25 is 45.84

Teams with a harder than average schedule:

1...Florida...........39
2...Alabama...........27
7...Oregon.............5
10..Georgia Tech......17
12..Virginia Tech.....11
13..LSU...............18
16..Oregon State......28
17..Miami (FL)........15
18..USC...............10
19..California........19
23..West Virginia.....40
24..Stanford..........16​

Notice a distinct lack of red in this list? There is not one Top 25 non-BCS team which has played a harder than average schedule. Of the schools which did not make this cut, it bears noting that Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma State are all within 4 points of an average SOS, while Pitt is within 10 points.

Taking a look at the 5 rated Non-BCS teams, reveals the following:

4...TCU...............84
6...Boise State.......91
14..Brigham Young.....73
21..Houston..........103
25..Utah..............70​

The average rating of SOS for these 5 teams is an unimpressive 84.2. In other words, the average schedule for these teams is TCU's schedule (which we'll evaluate below) and Penn State's schedule (85th rated).

By way of contrast, the average SOS for all BCS teams rated in the top 25 is 36.25.

As the numbers show, when you remove the mid majors for consideration, the average BCS team faces a stronger schedule than the average when you include them. (Overall Avg 45.84 to BCS Avg. 36.25) The Mid Majors, by way of contrast, enjoy not just an easier slate, but a significantly easier slate, than average. (Overall Avg. 45.84 to 84.2)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

TCU's Schedule

@ Virginia
Texas State
@ Clemson
Southern Methodist
@ Air Force
Colorado State
@ No. 16 Brigham Young
UNLV
@ San Diego State
No. 16 Utah
@ Wyoming
New Mexico

Ratings of any teams above are at the time of the contest.

Ask yourself this, which of the following teams would you expect to run the table against this schedule.

7...Oregon.............5
8...Ohio State........60
9...Iowa..............47
10..Georgia Tech......17
11..Penn State........85
12..Virginia Tech.....11
13..LSU...............18
15..Pittsburgh........52
16..Oregon State......28
17..Miami (FL)........15
18..USC...............10
19..California........19
20..Oklahoma State....48
22..Nebraska..........62
23..West Virginia.....40
24..Stanford..........16​

I have not included other undefeated teams as I think we can all agree that if Florida, Alabama, and Texas can go undefeated against their actual schedules, which are significantly harder than TCU's, they'd also fair well against this slate.

Of course, one has to concede that upsets happen - Ohio State fans know this feeling for the first time in a few seasons after the Purdue game - and to the credit of TCU, they did not falter as many teams ultimately do. Of course the point of this discussion is not to suggest that SOS is the end all for consideration of how good a football team is. That is to say, TCU is a pretty good football team no matter how you slice it. But, how good? It's hard to say.

It's impossible to say with any authority that any of the teams listed above would run the table had they played TCU's schedule, but I am betting if you fairly consider the scenario you'll be able to identify at least a couple. Personally, I believe Oregon, Ohio State, Iowa, Georgia Tech, Penn State, LSU, Virginia Tech, and USC would stand a good chance of running TCU's slate to an undefeated record. Speculative, to be sure. But, the main point is this - one can easily identify a handful of schools which we'd expect to go undefeated in this instance. Why should we be "wowed" with TCU's having done it?

What does TCU "deserve" for playing a weak schedule? If USC beat this same schedule would we not all be arguing how "unfair" it is that a Major power like USC gets to skate to the Championship game by playing a ton of glorified High Schools? So, again, why do we give TCU a pass? Why is it "unfair" to TCU that they don't get a shot at the title (assuming they do not based on the events of Dec. 5)?

Isn't it just as "unfair" to Oregon that it played a schedule rated 5th hardest in the nation? What incentive is there for Oregon to have done this if all you have to do is load up on glorified High Schools to make a "playoff?"

Short of a drastic re-alignment such as that proposed by LordJeffBuck (which efforts to offer some degree of "balance" to every team's schedule), it seems to me that there ought to be a minimum standard in what teams will be considered at all. Shouldn't you have to play a schedule in the top half of the nation, at least, to be considered among the Nation's best? I don't know where we might draw that line. But, I do know this - when you beat a slate full of nobodies I'm not particularly impressed. Are you?

We could also do a similar analysis (such that it is) with the schedule of Boise State, the only other undefeated non-BCS school:

Here it is:
No. 16 Oregon
Miami (OH)
@ Fresno State
@ Bowling Green
UC Davis
@ Tulsa
@ Hawaii
San Jose State
@ Louisiana Tech
Idaho
@ Utah State
Nevada
New Mexico State

With the exception of the opener against Oregon, there is simply not one game on that slate which would cause "the Big Boys" any trouble. To Boise State's credit, they beat the Ducks. But, one wonders how, say, Ohio State would be perceived if they were undefeated against such a schedule. I'd submit that no one would consider the Buckeyes particularly "legitimate." So, why do we give Boise State a pass?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Perhaps the reason why good mid major programs get the benefit of the doubt is because people like to remember Boise State's stunning upset over Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl and Utah's Sugar Bowl victory over Alabama.

But, these handful of wins do not tell much of the story. We might consider this in two ways. First, we could examine the bowl history of TCU, Boise State, BYU, Houston and Utah (as the 5 non-BCS teams presently in the BCS top 25). We might also consider how these same 5 schools have fared in their last 9 games against BCS schools.

* The nine game threshold was chosen as a recognition that even the "Big Schools" schedule a handful of cream-puffs. (It's essentially 8 conference games, 1 marquee OOC game and 3 cream-puffs) None of the non-BCS schools should be expected to schedule something more difficult than a what a typical BCS school has to face.

TCU's Bowl Record since 2000

Year..Bowl..................Oppnent.......Score..W/L
2000..Mobile Alabama........Southern Miss.21-28..L
2001..Galleryfurniture.com..Texas A&M......9-28..L
2002..Liberty...............Colorado State.17-3..W
2003..Fort Worth............Boise State...31-34..L
2005..Houston...............Iowa State....27-24..W
2006..Poinsettia............Northern Ill...37-7..W
2007..Texas.................Houston.......20-13..W
2008..Poinsettia............Boise State...17-16..W
​

Overall record: 5-3
Record against BCS Schools: 1-1 (Win: 2005 Iowa State (7-5))

Boise State's Bowl Record since 2000

Year..Bowl..................Oppnent.......Score..W/L
2000..Humanitarian Bowl.....UTEP..........38-23..W
2002..Humanitarian Bowl.....Iowa State....34-16..W
2003..Fort Worth Bowl.......TCU...........34-31..W
2004..AutoZone Liberty Bowl.Louisville....40-44..L
2005..MPC Computers Bowl....Boston Coll...21-27..L
2007..Tostitos Fiesta Bowl..Oklahoma......43-42..W
2007..Sheraton Hawaii Bowl..East Carolina.38-41..L
2008..Poinsettia Bowl.......TCU...........16-17..L
​

Overall Record: 4-4
Record Against BCS Schools: 2-1 (Wins: 2002 Iowa State (7-7), 2006 Oklahoma 10-3)

BYU's Bowl Record since 2000

Year..Bowl..................Oppnent.......Score..W/L
2001..Liberty Bowl..........Louisville....10-28..L
2005..Las Vegas Bowl........California....28-35..L
2006..Las Vegas Bowl........Oregon.........38-8..W
2007..Las Vegas Bowl........UCLA..........17-16..W
2008..Las Vegas Bowl........Arizona.......21-31..L
​

Overall Record: 2-3
Record Against BCS Schools: 2-2 (Wins: 2006 Oregon (7-6), 2007 UCLA (6-7))

Houston's Bowl Record since 2000

Year..Bowl..................Oppnent.......Score..W/L
2003..Hawai'i...............Hawaii........48-54..L
2005..Ft. Worth.............Kansas........13-42..L
2006..Liberty...............South Car.....36-44..L
2007..Texas.................TCU...........13-20..L
2008..Armed Forces..........Air Force.....34-28..W
​

Overall Record: 1-4
Record against BCS Schools: 0-2

Utah's Bowl Record since 2000

Year..Bowl..................Oppnent.......Score..W/L
2001..Las Vegas.............Southern Cal...10-6..W
2003..Liberty...............Southern Miss..17-0..W
2004..Fiesta................Pittsburgh.....35-7..W
2005..Emerald...............Georgia Tech..38-10..W
2006..Armed Forces..........Tulsa.........25-13..W
2007..Poinsettia............Navy..........35-32..W
2008..Sugar.................Alabama.......31-17..W
​

Overall Record: 7-0
Record against BCS Schools: 4-0 (2001 USC (6-6), 2004 Pittsburgh (8-4), 2005 Georgia Tech (7-5), 2008 Alabama (12-2))

As mentioned in the opening paragraphs, there are some memorable wins listed here, specifically Boise State over Oklahoma and Utah's victory over Alabama in 2008. But, after that, you have to look at Utah's win over Pittsburgh in the 2004 Fiesta as the next best win. Pittsburgh was an 8-4 conference champion in a Big East Conference that had just been raided by the ACC losing its then national powers Miami of Florida and Virginia Tech.

By combining the records of the teams which these mid majors have beaten in bowl games since 2000, we see that the average record of "Big Boy" bowl opponents they defeat is 70-45 .608 or an average record of 7.7-5.

Ask yourself this - if Ohio State went to a bowl game to play a 7-5 school, would you A) expect a win, and B) argue winning such a game is evidence of bowl success such that Ohio State "deserves" something this season?

There are good teams with "mid major" status. Indeed, a team like Utah might be better suited as a BCS school than some conference bottom feeders. An argument can be made that Boise State is more legitimate than hapless Duke and TCU would probably be just fine if they played in the Big East, in all likelihood. This discussion does not attempt to minimize the success these programs have had.

That said, there is a big difference between the perception and the reality. The reality is these schools have done little to earn any sort of "pass" in as much as they have obtained strong looking win loss records against suspect competition. Throw in Hawaii getting shellacked by Georgia (and Notre Dame, for that matter) and the myth of the Mid Major upset loses even more luster.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

In their last 9 games against BCS foes:

TCU's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..@ Virginia..(3-9)....30-14...W
2009..@ Clemson...(8-4)....14-10...W
2008..Oklahoma...(12-2)....10-35...L
2008..Stanford....(5-7)....31-14...W
2007..Stanford....(4-8)....38-36...W
2007..Texas......(10-3)....13-34...L
2007..Baylor......(3-9)....27-0....W
2006..Texas Tech..(8-5)....12-3....W
2006..Baylor......(4-8)....17-7....W
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 7-2
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 2-2
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 35-50 .467
Combined Record of Opponents who beat TCU: 22-5 .814

Clearly TCU has fared pretty well against BCS Schools over the course of their last 9 contests against them. However, the teams they are beating are bottom feeder BCS Schools more often than not. This lends support to perhaps making TCU a "BCS School" and removing Baylor from the ranks, but I'm not sure it means TCU should be given any particular credit for their facially impressive 7-2 record.

In any event, forgiving the more obvious flaws with this analysis (for example, it spanning several seasons - which itself might be offset by TCU having to play these teams in successive weeks) if TCU played in a BCS conference, and if we assume TCU wins it's other 3 games (to make a 12 game season) we see they are at best a 10-2 team. That's still pretty good, no question about it. But, it's decidedly NOT National Championship caliber.

Edit: Correction - TCU played and beat Clemson this season. I removed the win over 7-5 Iowa State (2005) and included the Clemson result. The record of 7-2 is unchanged, and TCU did gain .067 points in terms of winning PCT of BCS teams beat.

Boise State's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..Oregon......(9-2)....19-8....W
2008..Oregon.....(10-3)....37-32...W
2007..Washington..(4-9)....10-24...L
2007..Oklahoma...(11-3)....43-42...W
2006..Oregon St..(10-4)....42-14...W
2005..Boston Col..(9-3)....21-27...L
2005..Oregon St...(5-6)....27-30...L
2005..Georgia....(10-3)....13-48...L
2004..Oregon St...(7-5)....53-34...W
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 5-4
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 5-2
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 47-17 .734
Combined Record of Opponents who beat BSU: 28-21 .571

One thing becomes fairly clear when we look at Boise State's play against BCS teams - Boise State is able to "get up" for a perceived big game. Their record against BCS teams with winning records is an impressive 5-2, and that is to their credit. However, despite the "big game" success Boise State is just 1 game better than .500 against BCS competition, losing some games to some bad teams, most notably 4-9 Washington.

As it is, if Boise State was in the Pac 10, for example, they would generally be a 8-4 club - if we assume as we did with TCU that Boise State would win each of it's OOC games. There are teams out there who are able to "get up" for the big games. Michigan State comes to mind. Texas Tech or Oklahoma State might do the same from time to time. USC killer Stanford might be an excellent correlary. But, none of these teams "deserve" a shot at the National Championship simply because they win games they probably should not.

BYU's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..Florida St..(6-6)....54-28...L
2009..Oklahoma....(7-5)....14-13...W
2008..Arizona.....(8-5)....21-31...L
2008..UCLA........(4-8)....59-0....W
2008..Washington.(0-12)....28-27...W
2007..UCLA........(6-7)....17-16...W
2007..UCLA........(6-7)....17-27...L
2007..Arizona.....(5-7)....20-7....W
2006..Oregon......(7-6)....38-8....W
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 6-3
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 2-1, the best of which is 2009 Oklahoma (7-5)
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 29-45 .392
Combined Record of Opponents who beat BYU: 20-18 .526

Here again we see a mid major with a fairly respectable W/L record against BCS teams. BYU is 6-3 against their last 9 BCS teams played. But, the teams they have beaten have been pathetic, on the whole. The Cougars best win is over 2009 Oklahoma, which currently stands at 7-5.

Since winning the MNC in 1984, BYU is the traditional Mid Major power and might be considered the most "storied" of those schools. Still, if they were in a BCS conference, in this case the Pac 10, and they were able to play UCLA 3 times a year and a laughable Washington, they'd still only be a 9-3 team. Of course, no one is suggesting BYU deserves anything in 2009. Nor should they. Like TCU and Boise State, BYU might be good enough to be considered a team which should join a BCS conference, and they'd stand a decent chance of being a bowl eligible team most years. But, I don't think we can expect them to be competing for National Titles with any frequency.

Houston's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..Texas Tech..(8-4)....29-28...W
2009..Oklahoma St.(9-3)....45-35...W
2008..Oklahoma St.(9-4)....37-56...L
2007..Alabama.....(7-6)....30-24...L
2007..Oregon......(9-4)....27-48...L
2006..South Car...(8-5)....36-44...L
2006..Miami, Fla..(7-6)....13-14...L
2006..Oklahoma St.(7-6)....34-25...W
2005..Kansas......(7-5)....13-42...L
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 3-6
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 3-6
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 24-13 .649
Combined Record of Opponents who beat Houston: 47-30 .610

As with BYU, no one is suggesting that Houston is being treated unfairly by the BCS. I have considered them here nonetheless so as to provide a picture of the occasional "hot" non-BCS school which might raise up any particular year before falling off again. Schools like Bowling Green, Miami of Ohio, Southern Mississippi and the like.

To Houston's credit, they are the only Mid Major considered thus far which has faced only BCS teams with winning records. That tells me two things. First, they are a scheduled win for those schools, and second, it's not quite fair to evaluate them on this metric because it is a rare conference indeed which has nothing but winning teams, even if the bulk of those teams are just above .500.

At 3-6, we maybe don't have to assume Houston would win its non-BCS games which would be their OOC schedule. Even if we do give them the benefit of the doubt, they're a 6-6 club. In my mind, Houston is like your Indiana's or Illinois' They're able to put it together on rare occasion, but tend to be little more than conference filler.

Utah's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..Oregon......(9-2)....31-24...L
2009..Alabama....(12-2)....31-17...W
2008..Oregon St...(9-4)....58-10...W
2008..Michigan....(3-9)....25-23...W
2007..UCLA........(6-7)....44-6....W
2007..Oregon St...(9-4).....7-24...L
2006..UCLA........(7-6)....10-31...L
2005..Georgia Tech(7-5)....38-10...W
2005..North Car...(5-6)....17-31...L
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 5-4
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 3-3
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 37-27 .578
Combined Record of Opponents who beat Utah: 36-18 .667

Finally, last year's torch bearer of the Mid Major being "screwed" out of things. After struggling to beat what would turn out to be a 3-9 Michigan team, Utah never looked back on its way to defeating an Alabama team which was uninspired to be in the Sugar Bowl after failing to make the BCS Championship game. They had a very good season. No question about it.

But, they're only 5-4 against their last 9 BCS opponents and seem to be about the same as Boise State - able to get up for the "bigger" games, but not particularly special in other games on this hypothetical schedule. Giving them 3 OOC wins, they're just an 8-4 team. Are they better than Clemson? Maybe. Are they better than Duke? Yeah, I'd say so. But, they're not competing for National Titles if they were made to play in a BCS conference.

 

[Tlangs]

Great posts....

although I refuse to list Boise's win over Oklahoma as an upset since they had a better ranking going into the game.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Great posts....

although I refuse to list Boise's win over Oklahoma as an upset since they had a better ranking going into the game.

But... but... but... OU has Big Game Bobby...

:p

 

[billmac91]

I made this point on the Bowl Projections thread, but why even have non-BCS conferences as part of the current system? If they can't win the championship, what's the point?

Their strength of schedule will always be weaker because of conference scheduling, and typically, a Utah/TCU isn't going to get an invite from the Big Boys because it's a lose-lose situation for an Ohio State/Texas/USC. Why schedule a very good TCU team, when you can sell-out a stadium against Miami (OH) and if you're looking for a big time opponent, make it a Texas, Oklahoma, or Va Tech?

I just don't see what the Utah's/TCU's of the world can do other than going independent, and trying to schedule an upper-echelon opponent every week, which isn't realistic whatsoever....

Give me a playoff :)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I made this point on the Bowl Projections thread, but why even have non-BCS conferences as part of the current system? If they can't win the championship, what's the point?

As I said in that thread, that's the whole point. It's time to end this bullshit illusion that your NMSUs, Louisiana Lafayette's and Idaho's are playing for the same crystal football as your Florida's, Texas' and Ohio State's play for.

Cut the fat. There's "fat" in the BCS conferences too. I mean, lets face it, Indiana isn't any good, has had a long long history of not being any good. Could TCU replace them in the Big Ten? You bet. (Sparing distance factors, the point being the solution is to move the "good" mid majors in to "real" leagues and cut the fat)

Playoffs would serve to give your mid majors an unfair advantage as we still expect the "big boys" to play "big boy games" but don't require the same of the mid majors.

In 2007 people were hugely upset that Ohio State might get a Championship Bid despite a dreadfully weak schedule. (As it turned out, they were the only 1 loss team, when all was said and done). If it's good enough for TCU, then it's good enough for Ohio State. And lets face it... it's NOT good enough for Ohio State (nor should it be)

 

[BB73]

As I said in that thread, that's the whole point. It's time to end this bullshit illusion that your NMSUs, Louisiana Lafayette's and Idaho's are playing for the same crystal football as your Florida's, Texas' and Ohio State's play for.

Cut the fat. There's "fat" in the BCS conferences too. I mean, lets face it, Indiana isn't any good, has had a long long history of not being any good. Could TCU replace them in the Big Ten? You bet. (Sparing distance factors, the point being the solution is to move the "good" mid majors in to "real" leagues and cut the fat)

Playoffs would serve to give your mid majors an unfair advantage as we still expect the "big boys" to play "big boy games" but don't require the same of the mid majors.

In 2007 people were hugely upset that Ohio State might get a Championship Bid despite a dreadfully weak schedule. (As it turned out, they were the only 1 loss team, when all was said and done). If it's good enough for TCU, then it's good enough for Ohio State. And lets face it... it's NOT good enough for Ohio State (nor should it be)

Kansas had 1-loss in 2007, but it came late to Mizzou, and their non-conference schedule (Cent Mich. SE La, Toledo, Fla Int'l) sucked, so they were ranked 8th in the final BCS, behind six 2-loss teams, that year. But they actually won the Orange Bowl against Va Tech, so when all was said and done, they were actually the only team from one of the 6 power conferences to only have 1 loss.

 

[sepia5]

Cut the fat. There's "fat" in the BCS conferences too. I mean, lets face it, Indiana isn't any good, has had a long long history of not being any good. Could TCU replace them in the Big Ten? You bet. (Sparing distance factors, the point being the solution is to move the "good" mid majors in to "real" leagues and cut the fat)

This sounds good in theory, but in reality conference affiliations and other factors would never allow this to happen. To use your example, Indiana has been a member of the Big Ten for some time now, and they wouldn't just go quietly into the night if the conference tried to rid itself of them. Furthermore, TCU and the remaining mid-major powers make little sense in the Big Ten geographically and/or academically. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it's not as if conference affiliation can be viewed only through the athletic lens of football. There are a number of other Indiana U sports programs that belong to the Big Ten, after all. No way the Big Ten wants to lose Indiana as a member of its basketball affiliation. And if you tried to sever the football program and retain the basketball program, I'm pretty sure Indiana would take their ball and go play in the Big East or ACC or elsewhere.

Conferences can expand much easier than they can sever the bottom feeders in any given sport. From a merely athletics standpoint, it would make a lot of sense for the Big XII to add TCU or the PAC-10 to add a Utah or BYU. But at some point conferences get too large and unwieldy, and you might as well not have them at all. Perhaps what would make the most sense would be to create two new BCS caliber conferences, or at least one new one and add teams to the Big East.

How about a new BCS conference that looks something like this:

TCU
BYU
Utah
Boise State
Fresno State
Nevada
SMU
Houston
Air Force
Hawaii
Troy
Southern Miss

Given the bump up to BCS status, I bet that could be a conference on par with the Big East and maybe the ACC year in and year out.

You could add a few other perennial Mid-major powers to the Big East, like East Carolina, UCF, and a couple of the MAC programs. I think this would actually be much more realistic than severing the fat from the existing BCS conferences in order to add new life from the Sunbelt, MAC, WAC, etc.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Kansas had 1-loss in 2007, but it came late to Mizzou, and their non-conference schedule (Cent Mich. SE La, Toledo, Fla Int'l) sucked, so they were ranked 8th in the final BCS, behind six 2-loss teams, that year. But they actually won the Orange Bowl against Va Tech, so when all was said and done, they were actually the only team from one of the 6 power conferences to only have 1 loss.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This sounds good in theory, but in reality conference affiliations and other factors would never allow this to happen. To use your example, Indiana has been a member of the Big Ten for some time now, and they wouldn't just go quietly into the night if the conference tried to rid itself of them. Furthermore, TCU and the remaining mid-major powers make little sense in the Big Ten geographically and/or academically. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it's not as if conference affiliation can be viewed only through the athletic lens of football. There are a number of other Indiana U sports programs that belong to the Big Ten, after all. No way the Big Ten wants to lose Indiana as a member of its basketball affiliation. And if you tried to sever the football program and retain the basketball program, I'm pretty sure Indiana would take their ball and go play in the Big East or ACC or elsewhere.

Conferences can expand much easier than they can sever the bottom feeders in any given sport. From a merely athletics standpoint, it would make a lot of sense for the Big XII to add TCU or the PAC-10 to add a Utah or BYU. But at some point conferences get too large and unwieldy, and you might as well not have them at all. Perhaps what would make the most sense would be to create two new BCS caliber conferences, or at least one new one and add teams to the Big East.

Points well taken re: the difficulty of implementing such a drastic change. I would observe that ND plays basketball in the Big East, but not Football, so it can be done... but I agree that there's more at risk than football. I didn't seriously mean TCU should join the Big 10, like you say joining the Big XII makes more sense, I was just floating the concept. I probably should have been more careful in that regard.

How about a new BCS conference that looks something like this:

TCU
BYU
Utah
Boise State
Fresno State
Nevada
SMU
Houston
Air Force
Hawaii
Troy
Southern Miss

Given the bump up to BCS status, I bet that could be a conference on par with the Big East and maybe the ACC year in and year out.

You could add a few other perennial Mid-major powers to the Big East, like East Carolina, UCF, and a couple of the MAC programs. I think this would actually be much more realistic than severing the fat from the existing BCS conferences in order to add new life from the Sunbelt, MAC, WAC, etc.

It would take me some getting used to, but I think I could live with that group having BCS status.

It is probably more realistic than cutting the fat. I just think that a complete reorganization is probably the "best" solution. When LJB proposed it, I think I might have even commented that the reorg was quite unlikely to occur, so I dig where you're coming from on that score.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

Of course the point of this discussion is not to suggest that SOS is the end all for consideration of how good a football team is. That is to say, TCU is a pretty good football team no matter how you slice it. But, how good? It's hard to say.

If this is the case, please stop bringing up SOS when comparing teams with the same record. In this case, teams with zero losses.

Your discussion of teams records vs BCS teams is the reason why teams get ranked too high at the start of the season. They take into account only what teams did in the past and not with the team that is playing now. Notre Dame and Michigan always being overrated at the start of the year just because of who they are. Just because Boise St. lost to a 5-6 Oregon St. team in 2005 it does not mean they would lose to a 11-3 Oklahoma team in 2007. In your argument, a 2009 TCU team who could beat Florida, Alabama or Ohio State would not get the opportunity to because of what they did in 2005 or 2006.

 

[sepia5]

If this is the case, please stop bringing up SOS when comparing teams with the same record. In this case, teams with zero losses.

Your discussion of teams records vs BCS teams is the reason why teams get ranked too high at the start of the season. They take into account only what teams did in the past and not with the team that is playing now. Notre Dame and Michigan always being overrated at the start of the year just because of who they are. Just because Boise St. lost to a 5-6 Oregon St. team in 2005 it does not mean they would lose to a 11-3 Oklahoma team in 2007. In your argument, a 2009 TCU team who could beat Florida, Alabama or Ohio State would not get the opportunity to because of what they did in 2005 or 2006.

That's not really what his argument is at all, as I understand it. I think he's trying to show that it sounds nice to say that perennial mid-majors like TCU or BYU or Boise State deserve to have a shot at the BCS games on a yearly basis, but that, in fact, when those programs have actually met BCS conference teams on the field in the past, the results have been mixed at best.