Mid Majors, playoffs and who "deserves" what

[Buckeyefrankmp]

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.

So has Oklahoma's, but they would still get a shot at the title over TCU if both teams were undefeated.

 

[sepia5]

So has Oklahoma's, but they would still get a shot at the title over TCU if both teams were undefeated.

Oklahoma is one of the 10 winningest football programs of all time, and they've won a National Championship in recent memory. I hardly think the results are mixed when it comes to the Sooners. They're a year-in-and-year-out contender. If you'd said Baylor, I'd give you more credit, but, as this discussion has shown so far, conference affiliations are a tough thing to erradicate, and Baylor is currently affiliated with the Big XII, like it or not.

I think the point BKB was trying to make was that while these mid-majors that are routinely in the top 25 try to argue that they deserve a shot at the big boys in the BCS bowls b/c they "did all they could," in reality most of them probably aren't as good as their records or their supporters would have us believe, and they shouldn't be awarded a BCS bowl bid each year, at the expense of more proven BCS conference teams, simply b/c they played soft schedules. I generally sympathize with the plight of these programs (it really isn't their fault they have terrible SOSs), and it's one of the reasons I'd like to see a playoff that incorporates one or two of the best non-BCS conference teams each season.

But BKB's argument--as I understand it--is not that a 2009 undefeated TCU team should get skipped over by an undefeated Texas or Florida team because of what happened four years ago. It's that that TCU team should get skipped over by Texas and Florida because of what happened this year, and because TCU most likely isn't as good.

We wouldn't have to worry about skipping over any undefeated teams if we had a decent playoff structure. And that's what I would advocate for.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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

That seems a completely ridiculous thing to do. I don't know why this isn't self evident to everyone, but going undefeated against a harder schedule is more impressive than doing so against a weaker one. When I have to choose between teams of like record, I am going to consider under what circumstances they earned that record.

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.

Did you miss the part where I said "forgiving the more obvious flaws"

Don't pretend my post is trying to "prove" something it's not. As Sepia said, I was offering some data to consider which tends to go against he myth that these mid major programs are competitive. You can choose to accept it for what it's worth, or you can choose not to.

I am not going to excuse the polling system, as I agree with your assertion that they are based on little to nothing in the early part of the season. There should be no preseason poll, and there should be no polls at all until the voters have a chance to see what they're voting on.

The BCS limits this problem to some extent by not offering it's poll until mid October, and even with the preseason voter biases, the end results do tend to reflect reality for the most part. I mean, it's now the last week of the season, the BCS says Florida, Alabama and Texas are all in the conversation. Do you think that's wrong? Why?

The thing is - the BCS has never produced a Champion that didn't deserve to be Champion. It may have excluded some teams who might have also "deserved" it, but it hasn't given us crap Champions. So, I think your poll remarks, while true and ones I agree with, are undercut in terms of relevance.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

We wouldn't have to worry about skipping over any undefeated teams if we had a decent playoff structure. And that's what I would advocate for.

I completely agree with you on this point.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

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)

I agree very much. There are too many teams in 1a college football for a playoff - far too many bad programs that get in the way.

 

[Piney]

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?

The reason non-BCS conferences forced their way into the BCS Bowls is for money pure and simple. Afterall, that is why the BCS exisits in the first place, money. It doesn't exist to crown a champion, it was a way for the BCS conferences to get even more money out of the major bowls by giving it a fancier title.

I think the point BKB was trying to make was that while these mid-majors that are routinely in the top 25 try to argue that they deserve a shot at the big boys in the BCS bowls b/c they "did all they could," in reality most of them probably aren't as good as their records or their supporters would have us believe, and they shouldn't be awarded a BCS bowl bid each year, at the expense of more proven BCS conference teams, simply b/c they played soft schedules. I generally sympathize with the plight of these programs (it really isn't their fault they have terrible SOSs), and it's one of the reasons I'd like to see a playoff that incorporates one or two of the best non-BCS conference teams each season.

But BKB's argument--as I understand it--is not that a 2009 undefeated TCU team should get skipped over by an undefeated Texas or Florida team because of what happened four years ago. It's that that TCU team should get skipped over by Texas and Florida because of what happened this year, and because TCU most likely isn't as good.

We wouldn't have to worry about skipping over any undefeated teams if we had a decent playoff structure. And that's what I would advocate for.

As a fan of a mid-major school, and overall a fan of the mid-major conferences. I can't disagree with BkB's main argument that alot it is a myth regarding the little guy 'deserving' to play in the championship'.

Heck, I am secretly a proponent of the BCS. While a playoff would be nice, this is still better than split national champions under the old system and at least we get a #1 v #2 game. And I would like to say that in a season like this when there are multiple undefeated teams is when the BCS works the best. Because it's job is to sort through everything to determine the 2 teams most deserving to play for the title. And it is working.

 

[billmac91]

The reason non-BCS conferences forced their way into the BCS Bowls is for money pure and simple. Afterall, that is why the BCS exisits in the first place, money. It doesn't exist to crown a champion, it was a way for the BCS conferences to get even more money out of the major bowls by giving it a fancier title.



As a fan of a mid-major school, and overall a fan of the mid-major conferences. I can't disagree with BkB's main argument that alot it is a myth regarding the little guy 'deserving' to play in the championship'.

Heck, I am secretly a proponent of the BCS. While a playoff would be nice, this is still better than split national champions under the old system and at least we get a #1 v #2 game. And I would like to say that in a season like this when there are multiple undefeated teams is when the BCS works the best. Because it's job is to sort through everything to determine the 2 teams most deserving to play for the title. And it is working.

Really? Utah and Auburn disagree. It's a better system than bowl tie-ins, but a playoff would be better than the BCS system. I think they'll get it right eventually. Until then, there's no telling if Utah could have beaten Florida last year, or if Cincinnati and Brian Kelly could scheme something up in a title game....which to me is disappointing, and eveidence of it not working.

It still bothers me 2/3rd's of the BCS is human voting....1/3rd being coaches who have bias and don't watch games on weekends other than upcoming opponents and game tape, and another 1/3rd who also have regional and personal biases. In Auburn's case, their SOS hurt badly, but mostly b/c human voters punished them for it. Their schedule doesn't mean they were the 3rd best team behind Oklahoma and USC, it just means voters are telling us who the best 2 teams are....and voters can be very wrong.

BTW, that Auburn team was sick...Jason Campbell, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Carlos Rogers...hell Brandon Jacobs couldn't even crack the RB rotation. Going undefeated in the SEC should get a chance to win the title on the field, IMO...

 

[BB73]

Really? Utah and Auburn disagree. It's a better system than bowl tie-ins, but a playoff would be better than the BCS system. I think they'll get it right eventually. Until then, there's no telling if Utah could have beaten Florida last year, or if Cincinnati and Brian Kelly could scheme something up in a title game....which to me is disappointing, and eveidence of it not working.

It still bothers me 2/3rd's of the BCS is human voting....1/3rd being coaches who have bias and don't watch games on weekends other than upcoming opponents and game tape, and another 1/3rd who also have regional and personal biases. In Auburn's case, their SOS hurt badly, but mostly b/c human voters punished them for it. Their schedule doesn't mean they were the 3rd best team behind Oklahoma and USC, it just means voters are telling us who the best 2 teams are....and voters can be very wrong.

BTW, that Auburn team was sick...Jason Campbell, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Carlos Rogers...hell Brandon Jacobs couldn't even crack the RB rotation. Going undefeated in the SEC should get a chance to win the title on the field, IMO...

The myth that Aubirn was screwed by the human preseason polls is simply a myth. It was a bad break they went undefeated in a year when there were two other undefeated BCS teams that had played better schedules, but that's all that happened, They weren't screwed by the BCS.

Auburn was third in the computer rankings at the end of the 2004 regular season. Their BCS computer score averaged exactly '3' in the final BCS standings. Oklahoma had a .990 computer score, USC a .970, and Auburn a .920)

Their final BCS score was higher in the human polls (.9385 from AP, .9410 from Coaches) than in the computers (.920). So they weren't screwed by the human polls, or by the BCS. They didn't deserve to be ranked higher than #3 based purely on schedules and results.

Link

 

[Steve19]

The answer is very simple for mid-majors. Stop hiding behind your commitments to Mickey Mouse conference schedules. Either,

1. Load up with tough games in your OOC schedule and then ride the easy train to the final destination or
2. Get out of the Mickey Mouse conference in which you play and seek an affiliation to a tougher conference.

In either case, stop...

...your problems are within your control to correct.

 

[Piney]

Really? Utah and Auburn disagree. It's a better system than bowl tie-ins, but a playoff would be better than the BCS system. I think they'll get it right eventually. Until then, there's no telling if Utah could have beaten Florida last year, or if Cincinnati and Brian Kelly could scheme something up in a title game....which to me is disappointing, and eveidence of it not working.

It still bothers me 2/3rd's of the BCS is human voting....1/3rd being coaches who have bias and don't watch games on weekends other than upcoming opponents and game tape, and another 1/3rd who also have regional and personal biases. In Auburn's case, their SOS hurt badly, but mostly b/c human voters punished them for it. Their schedule doesn't mean they were the 3rd best team behind Oklahoma and USC, it just means voters are telling us who the best 2 teams are....and voters can be very wrong.

BTW, that Auburn team was sick...Jason Campbell, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Carlos Rogers...hell Brandon Jacobs couldn't even crack the RB rotation. Going undefeated in the SEC should get a chance to win the title on the field, IMO...

Like I said... the BCS WORKED that year. It was able to sort through 3 teams to determine the 2 that deserved to play. Now, I do agree that the formula that we have right now sucks (heavily tilted towards human polls) but as BkB's data shows it isn't like any other formula would help Cincy/TCU since their SOS is worse than Florida/Alabama/Texas.

The answer is very simple for mid-majors. Stop hiding behind your commitments to Mickey Mouse conference schedules. Either,

1. Load up with tough games in your OOC schedule and then ride the easy train to the final destination or
2. Get out of the Mickey Mouse conference in which you play and seek an affiliation to a tougher conference.

In either case, stop...



...your problems are within your control to correct.

The problems are really within their control??? How can Boise, BYU, Utah or TCU get into a bigger conference? Is the Pac 10 willing to take any of them? How bout the Big 12? How bout taking Boise as the 12th team in the Big 10.

And don't tell me if they combined into a 'big' mid-major conference that they would be accepted into the BCS. Because the BCS is an exclusive club that will fight tooth and nail to allow them a chair at the big boy table.

While I do accept they could schedule tough to counter their weak conference. BYU did that this year. Then again if they were undefeated right now we would be hearing that Oklahoma & FSU sucked this year and that was the only reason they won those games.

Or you can have Boise's problem and not have anyone willing to play them. So they 'could' be trying to play tough out of conference teams but the big man could be keeping them down by refusing to play them.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Or you can have Boise's problem and not have anyone willing to play them. So they 'could' be trying to play tough out of conference teams but the big man could be keeping them down by refusing to play them.

Are they refusing to play them or refusing to give them a home and home series? Remembering Bowden one of the things I used to like about FSU was the "play anyone, anywhere, anytime" attitude. Fresno State did the same thing for a while and I don't remember either one lacking for teams that would play them.

Maybe some of the big boys will wuss out and not play the tougher mid majors for fear of losing but I'd be willing to bet it has more to do with the Boise states asking for a return home game out of the deal.

 

[Steve19]

The problems are really within their control??? How can Boise, BYU, Utah or TCU get into a bigger conference? Is the Pac 10 willing to take any of them? How bout the Big 12? How bout taking Boise as the 12th team in the Big 10.

And don't tell me if they combined into a 'big' mid-major conference that they would be accepted into the BCS. Because the BCS is an exclusive club that will fight tooth and nail to allow them a chair at the big boy table.

While I do accept they could schedule tough to counter their weak conference. BYU did that this year. Then again if they were undefeated right now we would be hearing that Oklahoma & FSU sucked this year and that was the only reason they won those games.

Or you can have Boise's problem and not have anyone willing to play them. So they 'could' be trying to play tough out of conference teams but the big man could be keeping them down by refusing to play them.

I guess we will disagree. Here is the problem. These teams want to put their "undefeated" record on the table and then claim that it should be treated the same as the major conferences.

This is unfair for several reasons. It's relatively easy to play cupcakes with the occasional tough opponent than to play relatively tough opponents week after week. Consider the middle of the season for Ohio State and the last three games. That Ohio State made it through that is a testimony to their improvement. Letting Iowa back into the game was due in part to tiredness and we lost to Purdue, in my opinion, because the defense was left on the field so long in the Wisconsin game.

Here is their SOS this year, which is MUCH improved over prior years. Remember, SOS measures the average of teams, as if every game was the same. The drop off from #10 (85.53) to #20 (81.65) is greater than from #70 (69.47) to #80 (67.36). So, playing a SOS ranked #40 means that, on average, you play a team that is 10 points better than a team ranked number 80. Week after week. If you are in the top 20, you play a team on average that is 15 points better. By playing a tough game, Boise State masks some really weak cupcakes in the schedule.

Strength of schedule (Sagarin link):

Boise State (#91, 7th toughest in the WAC, #50-#97)
BYU (#73, 6th toughest in the MWC, #55-#90)
TCU (#84, 7th toughest in the MWC)

Only Penn State (#85), TSUN (#88), and Northwestern (#95) played an SOS comparable in the Big Ten (#26-#95).

Only Cincy (#77, 7th toughest in the BE) and Rutgers (#108) did in the Big East (#34-#108).

No team did in the ACC (#3-#59), Big 12 (#30-#68), the PAC 10 (#1-#28) or the SEC (#4-#39).

So, these guys claim to be hard-done-by, yet we all know that it is tough to win against tough opponents weak after week.

If you doubt that, look at the record of Ohio State opponents the week following playing us.

So, beating their chests, Cincy claims to be the best team in Ohio based on being undefeated on the schedule then Big Ten bottom dweller Illinois have one of their best offensive performances of the year against them.

It must be possible for the mid-majors out west to cobble together a new conference of respectable teams and to schedule better OOC opponents in order to raise their SOS.

Once their SOS is raised, then they have a case for screaming foul play. Until they do, they will continue to be correctly seen as teams that face an average team every week that would rank in the bottom 10% or 20% of the FCS. Winning all your games in such a circumstance is not so much of an accomplishment as they might suggest.

 

[Piney]

Are they refusing to play them or refusing to give them a home and home series? Remembering Bowden one of the things I used to like about FSU was the "play anyone, anywhere, anytime" attitude. Fresno State did the same thing for a while and I don't remember either one lacking for teams that would play them.

Maybe some of the big boys will wuss out and not play the tougher mid majors for fear of losing but I'd be willing to bet it has more to do with the Boise states asking for a return home game out of the deal.

Well, the recent news had Boise looking for game, willing to go anywhere for a one-time game (meaning no return game) for 2012 (or was it 2011?) and no one is taking them up on it. Of course the fine print is they want $1 million for the game.

But that is just an example.

I guess we will disagree. Here is the problem. These teams want to put their "undefeated" record on the table and then claim that it should be treated the same as the major conferences.

Oh you are confusing my argument. I agree they don't deserve to be in the title game due to their SOS. No problem there, they MUST schedule tough OOC games, BYU could have been the first to pull it off and would have been a very interesting case if it did, but failed. Then again I still think they would have been told "Oklahoma & FSU both suck... next time you have to be fortune tellers and KNOW which teams will be in the Top 10 so you can schedule them, so when you win your wins will count"

I just don't agree that they have the power to change their lot in life. They are stuck, they can't upgrade to a BCS conference for multiple of reasons, and even if they create an all-star mid-major football conference it is so unrealistic and expensive (ie travel costs) that it can't happen.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Well, the recent news had Boise looking for game, willing to go anywhere for a one-time game (meaning no return game) for 2012 (or was it 2011?) and no one is taking them up on it. Of course the fine print is they want $1 million for the game.

But that is just an example.

Well that is essentially the same thing, they are asking a big school to take on more risk for less money.

I agree with you that the mid majors are stuck and this is a prime example. To get to the point where they can compete they need extra revenue, once they start asking for more money they are smacked with the reality of the economics of college football i.e. BCS schools are market makers the smaller schools are market takers.

A Boise State can't charge an Ohio State 1M for the same product (a home game for an OSU) that any one of 100 other smaller schools will gladly sell for 400K. Add in the element of Boise specifically being good enough to maybe beat a big school like OSU and it would be stupid for the big school to do that deal. Why get less of the gate AND have more risk of a season altering loss?

Maybe the answer is ask just slightly more than the average team and see what the market has to say but asking roughly 2 1/2 times the going rate seems to me about as much of a non starter as asking for the return home game.

 

[BB73]

Well that is essentially the same thing, they are asking a big school to take on more risk for less money.

I agree with you that the mid majors are stuck and this is a prime example. To get to the point where they can compete they need extra revenue, once they start asking for more money they are smacked with the reality of the economics of college football i.e. BCS schools are market makers the smaller schools are market takers.

A Boise State can't charge an Ohio State 1M for the same product (a home game for an OSU) that any one of 100 other smaller schools will gladly sell for 400K. Add in the element of Boise specifically being good enough to maybe beat a big school like OSU and it would be stupid for the big school to do that deal. Why get less of the gate AND have more risk of a season altering loss?

Maybe the answer is ask just slightly more than the average team and see what the market has to say but asking roughly 2 1/2 times the going rate seems to me about as much of a non starter as asking for the return home game.

Boise State's asking price may be a little high, but it's not that far off. New Mexico State was reportedly paid $850,000 for their trip to the 'Shoe this year.

Link