BCS Fans! Help Me Out Here

[ProfessorGAC]

Can someone explain the logic of what happened this weekend? Ohio State beats Michigan by a field goal, in their own stadium, when they were #1 and UM was #2. So, as logic would indicate, UM stays #2.

Now, USC beats Notre Dame on their own field, by about the same number of points that UM beat ND at South Bend(!) and gets pushed above UM in the BCS poll! Now how does UM get punished for not playing when they beat the same team by the same number of points and did it on the road?

This makes no sense to me at all. A team loses one game to the #1 team in the nation by 3 points on the road, and loses standing because a third team beat someone else the next week?
The Professor

[trotsky]

1. When someone explains it to you...

please pass it along to me. I don't get it either. But national sports writers HATE the teams from flyover land (except for perennially-overrated Notre Dame), so I suspect that has something to do with it.

[Counciltucky]

26. lol ... "flyover land"

As a Midwesterner myself (I'm Iowan) I find that term hilarious -- never heard it before.

That said, it's true -- they prefer the coastal teams. Ohio State and Michigan should get a rematch.

[LisaM]

2. It's wrong

We can just hope that UCLA somehow pulls an upset.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. Ta da!

[rep the dems]

3. I tend to enjoy college football, but it is a lot more confusing

than regular old NFL. I'm still not sure how it all works, I just hope the Gators end up in one of the bowls.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Possible solution

Have Notre Dame join a conference (Big Ten?, already the big 11) Have the Big Ten have a conference championship. ND would fade into obscurity and fans of the Big Ten could then empathize with fans of the SEC.

[KamaAina]

21. ND is already in the Big East

in all sports except football.

It's all about the $$$$; why would they want to join a conference, and split revenue with the Pitts and UConns of the world, when they can get their own national TV contract as an independent?

Blame NBC for laying out the big bucks to televise those classic ND-Air Force clashes. :sarcasm:

[mduffy31]

25. If you knew anything about the History of Notre Dame

You would know why they aren't in the Big Ten. They tried to but tOSU, UM, and MSU kept the "Catholics" out of it.

[Counciltucky]

27. Notre Dame does have an invite to join the Big 10.

I wouldn't mind it -- then you could have a Big 10 Championship Game. The one problem would be that the three best teams (Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame) would all be in the Eastern Division ... though as a student at Iowa I wouldn't have TOO much of a problem with that, lol.

[mduffy31]

28. Yes, now they do

But when they tried back in the day, they were snubbed because the Presidents of Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State didn't want a Catholic School in the Big Ten

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

5. Here's how I understand it.

First off, there is a belief in sports that rematches are rarely desireable. In this case, had Michigan and Ohio tied, then a rematch makes sense. If I'm Ohio I don't want to play Michigan again. Why? Because Ohio beat Michigan, why do they have to prove it again?
If you are Michigan, you want the rematch on a neutral field. However, if Michigan won a second contest then the cry might erupt for the 'best of three'. Where would it end?

This BCS thing is killing us college football junkies. I wish they'd go back to the old style of bowl games, let the traditions continue and have a New Years day filled with football. When that is over, rank the top 16 teams and have a new tradition created where the playoff is for the National Championship ala March Madness. Call it the "Division 1A National Championship Series" brought to you by:................
1 plays 16, 2 plays 15 etc. You could do it during January, it would take three weeks to get to the final two teams then you have your 'National Championship"
:shrug:

[LisaM]

6. I actually fail to see the need for a national championship game, anyway

It seems to me that it's designed for 1) fantasy leaguers; 2) ESPN; and 3) sports geeks who often aren't affiliated with a school.

I loved the old system. It was far superior to what happens now. I thought it was nice when lots of teams had important games on New Year's Day. So, there was the occasional argument over who should be ranked number one at the end of the year - SO WHAT? Guess what, there still is.

[jakefrep]

7. I agree with you....

....Thank God most of the college presidents (who would make the decision to start a playoff) don't give a shit about what ESPN and the other constituencies you mentioned want.

[erpowers]

8. Computer System

You may know this and it may not be what you are asking, but the computer thought USC had accumlated enough points to take over the number 2 spot. I guess losing to Ohio State caused Michigan to be just close enough to USC for USC to leap over Michigan if they beat Notre Dame.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. I Did Know That

I guess i'm trying to figure out how anyone in a position of authority within the NCAA can rationalize a computer program that punishes a team for beating the same opponent, by the same score, on the road (rather than USC which did it at home), because one game was played later in the year.

It is so illogical as to be a systemic problem, and not a computer issue. Computers just compute. No? So, someone programmed something in that allows a 20+ point victory over the exact same opponent to mean more in November than in September. Just plain stupid.
The Professor

[Awsi Dooger]

9. You're missing the basic aspect

Michigan was only #2 last week because they had played the full compliment of games while USC had not. If USC had already defeated Notre Dame and UCLA as of last week, then the Trojans would have been the BCS #2 team ahead of Michigan.

Michigan was actually the team that benefitted. It was the first time in more than 60 years that a #2 team lost to the #1 team during the regular season and remained #2 the following week. Even the great 1971 game between Nebraska and Oklahoma had the losing Sooners fall behind Alabama to #3. Then Oklahoma was restored to #2 after blowing out Auburn in the Sugar Bowl while Nebraska trampled Alabama in the Orange.

The media did a very poor job last week of not fully emphasizing that Michigan's #2 slot was a mere technicality. The Wolverines always needed USC to lose. If UCLA defeats USC then Michigan elevates to #2 in the BCS since Florida will be behind Michigan in both the subjective polls and computer rankings.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. I Didn't Miss The Basic Aspect

I understood it EXACTLY the way you explained it. My problem is that i don't think it makes any sense. Your explanation hasn't made sense of how a one loss team ends up dropping in the polls behind another one loss team, even though they both beat the same opponent.
The Professor

[Awsi Dooger]

18. Your initial post had a strange assertion

"Ohio State beats Michigan by a field goal, in their own stadium, when they were #1 and UM was #2. So, as logic would indicate, UM stays #2"

How in this earth is that logical? I already posted that no team in 60+ years had been #2, lost to #1, then remained #2 in the subsequent poll. You completely ignored that aspect.

The best example is 1993. FSU was #1 and Notre Dame #2. Both unbeaten. Notre Dame defeated FSU at home late in the season by a touchdown. Notre Dame actually dominated the game by much more than that amount. But a week later Notre Dame lost at home on a knuckleball last second FG by Boston College. Did Notre Dame remain #1? Hell no. Of course not. FSU jumped them to be #1, despite the same record and having lost head up to Notre Dame. That made much less sense than this scenario.

You don't get credit for losing late in the season. No matter the opponent or the site or the margin. Anyone who pretends otherwise is kidding themselves. Losing is punished, and rightfully so. At that point you need help. I'll state again that the media did a horrendous job in not emphasizing that after the Michigan/Ohio St game. Michigan was technically ahead of USC in the BCS at that stage. Big deal. That was like calling someone the leader in the clubhouse at 2 under when Tiger Woods has six holes to go and is 6 under. USC still had Notre Dame and UCLA to play. The margin between Michigan and USC in the human polls and computer numbers last week was tiny. Every polling and BCS analyst last week was saying USC merely needed two 1 point wins to vault Michigan. I honestly don't know how anyone is surprised.

Michigan doesn't exactly get huge computer credit for defeating Vanderbilt, Central Michigan and Ball St. Those were the non-conference opponents, other than Notre Dame. Meanwhile, USC played Nebraska and Arkansas along with Notre Dame. The Wolverines have no one to blame but themselves. I heard one BCS expert on the radio this week say that if Michigan's non-conference schedule strength had matched USC's, then Michigan would be in excellent shape to go to the title game.

This year was a 12 game season, based on how the calendar fell. The Pac-10 chose to add a 9th conference game. Other conferences, like the Big 10, decided to add an additional non-conference game. That may have been a nice home payday and a comfy win but in the end it may have backfired. No sympathy from me.

[ProfessorGAC]

I Know It Seems A Strange Assertion

However, it is logical that a #2 team losing by a field goal would not be penalized. The #1 team is supposed to be better, and bettors almost always add 2 or 3 points for home field advantage.

The 60 year history thing is what it think is ILLOGICAL. A 3 point loss to a team ranked ahead of you on their field is so predictable that the betting lines were set to add that 3 points to UM. If the coaches or writers have ALWAYS knocked down a #2 team for losing to a #1 team on the road by 3 points, then THEY are the illogical ones.

That's my whole point, i guess. While i understand your other points, the strength of schedule thing is FAR overrated. It wouldn't be if there were no head to head match-ups to address. But, with USC and UM, there is the direct matchup with Notre Dame. They both won big, with UM doing it in South Bend. Remember that while UM ONLY lost to the #1 team, USC lost to Oregon. (Or Oregon State, i forget.) They were ranked where, again? Oh yeah! So, apparently you and the computer want to give credit to a team for beating Nebraska and Arkansas, but losing to a nobody. UM, otoh, lost only to the consensus best team in the country. So, why would SoS be weighted so heavily?

Look, i've got no dog in the hunt. I didn't go to UM or to USC. I just think the whole thing is weighted badly, since i would surmise that head to head match-ups are always a better indicator of capability than the highly variable SoS. (Remember for instance, that of the teams that lost to UM in the Big Ten, 15 of the losses those teams had were to UM or OSU. The remaining record doesn't look that dreadful when you take those 15 losses out.) So, i guess my biggest beef is that the strength of schedule is weighted too heavily in the computer program and in the minds of the poll voters.

Thanks for the discussion though. We obviously don't agree, but that's ok.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

19. I Know It Seems A Strange Assertion

However, it is logical that a #2 team losing by a field goal would not be penalized. The #1 team is supposed to be better, and bettors almost always add 2 or 3 points for home field advantage.

The 60 year history thing is what it think is ILLOGICAL. A 3 point loss to a team ranked ahead of you on their field is so predictable that the betting lines were set to add that 3 points to UM. If the coaches or writers have ALWAYS knocked down a #2 team for losing to a #1 team on the road by 3 points, then THEY are the illogical ones.

That's my whole point, i guess. While i understand your other points, the strength of schedule thing is FAR overrated. It wouldn't be if there were no head to head match-ups to address. But, with USC and UM, there is the direct matchup with Notre Dame. They both won big, with UM doing it in South Bend. Remember that while UM ONLY lost to the #1 team, USC lost to Oregon. (Or Oregon State, i forget.) They were ranked where, again? Oh yeah! So, apparently you and the computer want to give credit to a team for beating Nebraska and Arkansas, but losing to a nobody. UM, otoh, lost only to the consensus best team in the country. So, why would SoS be weighted so heavily?

Look, i've got no dog in the hunt. I didn't go to UM or to USC. I just think the whole thing is weighted badly, since i would surmise that head to head match-ups are always a better indicator of capability than the highly variable SoS. (Remember for instance, that of the teams that lost to UM in the Big Ten, 15 of the losses those teams had were to UM or OSU. The remaining record doesn't look that dreadful when you take those 15 losses out.) So, i guess my biggest beef is that the strength of schedule is weighted too heavily in the computer program and in the minds of the poll voters.

Thanks for the discussion though. We obviously don't agree, but that's ok.
The Professor

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. Operative word "knuckleball."

Your dome is showing.

:D

[trotsky]

12. Here's my confusion.

As I understand the computer rankings, losing to a good team is not as bad as losing to an average or bad team.

Michigan's one loss came against the best team in the nation.

SoCal's loss came against a not-nearly-as-good Oregon State.

Why isn't USC punished for that loss more?

[LisaM]

13. Not to mention that Michigan's stats against ND were better

and, Michigan played ND at home.

All the more reason to go back to the old system.......

[trotsky]

14. Michigan crushed ND from the start.

USC jumped out to a big lead, then let ND come back and make it interesting. And yes, the home-away difference should be a big factor.

[madinmaryland]

15. Michigan had its shot against OSU and lost.

You only get one shot. Time for USC.

[BOSSHOG]

16. Here is what I clearly don't understand

Why isn't Notre Dame ranked at least number two? They've only lost two games. They started the season out ranked higher then they should have been and have been nothing short of awesome all year. They should be in the championship game and their quarterback should get the Heisman Trophy. And they should be preseason ranked number one for next season. Just because they lost to Michigan and USC doesn't mean they should be ranked behind them. And they have the greatest fans in the universe. And their coach is such a charmer. and how bout that cute lil leprechaun.

I just hope the Catholics don't get a bid for the Sugar Bowl. New Orleans doesn't need them roaming the quarter.

[Broken_Hero]

17. BCS fans?

I don't know any...:shrug: Everyone I know, (including myself) are BCS haters....:)

[erpowers]

20. Playoffs

I am not a BCS haters(I know your BCS hater comment was not directed at me) I just would like the teams to have a playoff schedule. I think that would end all the problems.

[LisaM]

22. But why? Why the winner-take-all mentality?

I don't care for it. Why not have lots of teams end the season feeling like winners?

And where would they hold these playoffs? Up North, where they would belong? Would people in Florida really want to go to Ann Arbor or Nebraska in February?

[CatholicEdHead]

30. Probably wouldn't but it would make it better overall

[fishwax]

23. I think it should be Florida, personally

provided they get past Arkansas. They will have beaten three teams currently in the top 15, with their only loss at Auburn, who is a top 15 team as well.

Michigan already played, and they lost. USC lost to Oregon State and barely scraped by Wazzu, Washington, and Arizona State. Big Deal.