A Statistical Look at the Undefeated Teams
by utesfan100 on Dec 3, 2009 9:17 PM EST
in BCS Analysis
28 comments
[Updated 5:00 ET to include the Cincinnati-Pittsburgh game and West Virginia's win over Rutgers]
[Updated 8:00 ET to include the SEC championship game and Boise State's win over New Mexico State]
[Updated Midnight ET to include the Big 12 and ACC Championship games]
It does not matter much anymore. It will be Alabama vs. Texas in the BCS NCG.
I really liked the way I compared TCU and Texas last week and have been curious how it would look if the other undefeated teams were included.
Basically I looked at a few widely accepted season statistics and then broke down a more detailed average box score from the games against the best three defenses and offenses each team faced. When you face the best teams on your schedule you come out like it is a bowl week.
If you can pad your stats against the best teams on your schedule that is much more impressive than beating the bottom end of your schedule mercilessly. Focusing on the top teams played helps with this.
These results will be updated as the final box scores come in this week. If you know any Harris Poll voters or sports information directors - er I mean coaches - let them know bout this resource. It could be handy for their final ballots!
All stats are examined per game. If this week's game would be in the top three the top two are averaged.
General
| Alabama | Texas | TCU | Cincinnati | Boise St. | ||
| Current Top 25 Faced |
#13 LSU |
#1 Florida #12 Virginia Tech #13 LSU |
#20 Oklahoma State #22 Nebraska |
#14 BYU #25 Utah |
#16 Oregon St. #15 Pittsburgh #23 West Virginia |
#7 Oregon |
| BCS | 0.9513 | 0.9282 | 0.8689 | 0.8547 | 0.8096 | |
| Record | 13-0 | 13-0 | 12-0 | 13-0 | 13-0 |
Alabama and Cincinnati have faced the most strong opponents among the undefeated teams. TCU will be third and Texas will have a single ranked opponent on tomorrow as Nebraska will drop out of the top 25.
Offense
| Alabama | Texas | TCU | Cincinnati | Boise St. | ||
| Points | 31.70 | 40.69 | 40.67 | 39.83 | 44.15 | |
| Yards | 413.77 | 432.38 | 469.08 | 464.25 | 460.46 | |
| Top Defenses Faced |
#29 LSU #31 Georgia |
#1 Florida #13 Virginia Tech #24 Mississippi |
#7 Oklahoma #11 Nebraska #32 Oklahoma St. |
#9 Air Force #14 Clemson #19 Utah |
#20 Rutgers #25 Pittsburgh #36 Syracuse |
#27 Oregon #71 Miami(OH) #79 Hawaii |
| Average | #12.7 | #16.7 | #14 | #27 | #59 | |
| Points | 29.3 | 23.3 | 29.7 | 40.0 | 40.3 | |
| Yards | 447.3 | 248.7 | 443.3 | 452.3 | 424.7 | |
| Rushing | 239.7 | 86.3 | 233.0 | 121.3 | 161.3 | |
| Passing | 207.7 | 162.3 | 210.3 | 331.0 | 263.3 | |
| Turnovers | 1.0 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
Boise State has by far been the least tested. Their numbers against Oregon are significantly less than these averages, indicating the extreme difference is significant.
Somewhat surprising is Texas' ability to put points on the board despite lagging in yardage and leading in turnovers. Nebraska exposed what had been a somewhat untested offense.
Florida's offense has staggered against their stronger opponents, and they have not yet faced the best defense they will see this year.
The top three offenses appear to be Alabama, Cincinnati and TCU.
Defense
| Alabama | Texas | TCU | Cincinnati | Boise St. | ||
| Points | 11.00 | 15.15 | 12.42 | 20.75 | 17.69 | |
| Yards | 241.70 | 251.08 | 233.25 | 350.25 | 299.62 | |
| Offenses Faced |
#16 Arkansas #27 Florida St. |
#12 Florida #16 Arkansas #22 Auburn |
#6 Texas A&M #7 Texas Tech #29 Oklahoma |
#20 BYU #55 Utah #60 SMU |
#19 Fresno St. #26 Oregon St. #46 Pittsburgh |
#2 Nevada #8 Hawaii #12 Idaho |
| Average | #16.7 | #14.0 | #45.0 | #30.3 | #7.3 | |
| Points | 13.7 | 25.4 | 16.3 | 27.3 | 22.3 | |
| Yards | 307.0 | 419.0 | 268.7 | 385.3 | 401.3 | |
| Rushing | 101.0 | 56.0 | 53.0 | 195.7 | 181.3 | |
| Passing | 206.0 | 363.0 | 215.7 | 189.7 | 220.0 | |
| Turnovers | 1.3 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 4.7 |
Offense gets you to the big games but defense wins them for you.
What Boise State lacks on offensive tests they make up for on defense. Unfortunately this has exposed their defensive somewhat.
TCU has been tested the least and has shown some vulnerability through the air.
Texas has been winning the turnovers but giving up mounds of yards and more points than any other undefeated team.
Cincinnati looks solid but does not compare with the two SEC teams or Boise State once the opposition is considered. Pittsburgh exposed weaknesses in their defense this weekend.
The top three defenses appear to be Florida, Alabama and Boise State.
Summary
In order of who looks stronger to me in the spread sheet:
Alabama Crimson Tide
With a solid schedule and a top offense and defense that has stood some strong tests Alabama looks to be by far the strongest of the title contenders to date.
TCU Horned Frogs
TCU has an acceptable schedule and a solid offense. Their defense has not been rigorously tested but has stood strong so far.
Cincinnati Bearcats
Cincinnati has a very strong schedule and a strong offense. Their defense has some questions to answer, especially after the Pittsburgh game.
Texas Longhorns
Texas has played a schedule that has not lived up to it Big 12 south hype. Weak out of conference games have not helped matters. Their offense has shown an ability to score despite slow production in other stats but their defense is questionable when compared to any of the other undefeated teams. If they face a solid defense with a passing game they will be in trouble.
Boise St. Broncos
Boise St. has an unfortunate schedule and a prolific but untested offense. Their defense has been tested by some of the most prolific offenses in the nation costing them some value in the statistics.
Florida Gators
Florida is no longer undefeated but will likely be ranked between TCU/Cincinnati and Boise State.
0 recs |
28 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The problem is...
The problem is the schedule isn’t just between 1-3 games a year. And I see this every time I see TCU, Boise St. and Cincy being promoted. Why is that?
It’s because that is the only way you can give their schedules any kind of strength to them. As it completely ignores all the cupcake teams the other teams played.
And if you don’t think those kinds of things matter, then I don’t know what to tell you because they do. And any educated voter knows it too. Who did they play the week before those games? Well for TCU it was a cupcake for 2 games before them each and every time. For Alabama, Texas and Florida, they don’t get that luxury. Even with the big12 being “weaker” than normal, it’s still leaps ahead of that which TCU played.
Oklahoma for example, is a much stronger team than many of the top25 teams. All but 1 of their loses were less than 7 points. And 2 of those losses were by 1 point. One of those 1 point losses came to BYU. But people want to act as if Oklahoma is just some run of the mill team. They aren’t. And neither is Nebraska, Texas Tech or Oklahoma St.
Sorry, but you can’t just pretend the season is only 3 games.
I have my own little computer rankings. I get what I call “quality stats”. Basically, I take the rank of the run offense, pass offense, and all that, and then the amount of yards the team scores becomes quality yards. Run up a bunch of yards and a high quality defense, and you get a bunch of quality yards. Same thing on defense, only the goal is obviously less yards allowed. Subtract the defense yards from the offense yards and get a power score. I take that power score from each team on a schedule, add them up, divide them the number of games played, and that is their SoS. FCS teams are worth 0.
In terms of Power, I rank it as Texas having the most power, TCU and Boise St are 5% less, Florida is 10% less, then Alabama at 12% less than the power of Texas. This ranking is basically just a measure of “how well they do against their opponents above average”. It’s a good rating for how strong a team really is outside the win/loss category IMO.
But that number isn’t how I rank the teams. I rank the teams based on the quality of the teams they have beaten. And when it comes to SoS – TCU, Boise St and Cincy all have been 20% and 30% less schedule strength than the top 3. So, my rankings come out with the top3, Texas, Florida, Alabama with TCU, Cincy and Boise St. behind them.
It has no conference bias, no rose colored glasses, no favorite team – the same formula last year said Utah #1. But it looks at the entire strength of the schedule using those power ratings, and it says the strength of schedule just isn’t there for TCU.
If you would like, I can send you the results etc.
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 7:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lets look at TCU and Texas' Schedules.
I will be interleaving opponents based on Massey’s Ranking Comparison’s average.
- TEXAS: Nebraska – not played yet
I will agree that a strong performance here will clearly put Texas over the top.
- TCU: BYU – 38 to 7
- TEXAS: Oklahoma St. – 41 to 14
These two games compare very well.
- TCU: Clemson – 14 to 10
- TEXAS: Oklahoma – 16 to 13
As to these two games.
- TEXAS: Texas Tech – 34 to 24
This must be the game you are laking about that sets Texas well over the top relative to TCU.
- TCU: Utah – 55 to 28
- TEXAS: Missouri – 41 to 7
Again, very comparable.
- TEXAS: UCF – 35 to 3
Ok, TCU does not have a solid win to match this game.
- TCU: Air Force – 20 to 17
- TEXAS: Texas A&M – 49 to 39
This is almost uncanny at this point actually.
None of the remaining teams were within 14 points of either team.
- TEXAS: Kansas
- TCU: SMU
- TEXAS: Baylor
- TCU: Virginia
- BOTH: Wyoming (TCU won 45-10 Texas 41-10)
- TEXAS: Colorado
- TCU: UNLV
- TEXAS: LA Monroe
- TCU: SDSU
- TEXAS: UTEP
- TCU: Colorado St.
- TCU: New Mexico
#FCS: TCU: Texas State
I will grant that Texas has nothing comparable to these last two games in their schedule.
The schedule difference can be looked at as swapping New Mexico and Texas State for Nebraska, Texas Tech and UCF. That is a large difference. Unfortunatly the difference against top teams in statisitics is comperable.
Who wins comes down to the phylisophical viewpoints that the person doing the measurements brings to the table ahead of time. If one favores raw statistics TCU wins. If you heavily weigth SOS Texas wins.
This is why we need a playoff that at least includes all undefeated teams. We shouldn;t have to choose between TCU and Texas, we should have both.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 4, 2009 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow The ranking numbers got messed op on that big time.
Apparently leading a line with a # breaks things.
TEXAS: #18 Nebraska – not played yet
TCU: #19 BYU – 38 to 7
TEXAS: #22 Oklahoma St. – 41 to 14
TCU: #23 Clemson – 14 to 10
TEXAS: #25Oklahoma – 16 to 13
TEXAS: #26 Texas Tech – 34 to 24
TCU: #31 Utah – 55 to 28
TEXAS: #37 Missouri – 41 to 7
TEXAS: #53 UCF – 35 to 3
TCU: #54 Air Force – 20 to 17
TEXAS: #58 Texas A&M – 49 to 39
TEXAS: #67 Kansas
TCU: #73 SMU
TEXAS: #78 Baylor
TCU: #80 Virginia
BOTH: #84 Wyoming (TCU won 45-10 Texas 41-10)
TEXAS: #86 Colorado
TCU: #87 UNLV
TEXAS: #92 LA Monroe
TCU: #99 SDSU
TEXAS: #101 UTEP
TCU: #104 Colorado St.
TCU: #116 New Mexico
TCU: #FCS Texas State
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 4, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MWC needs a better commish
MWC needs a championship game if it wants to really be taken seriously.
SoS matters to everyone, because when you have undefeated teams that is the only measure that is left. If that is not the case, then it becomes all about how much one team runs up the score on another.
A MWC championship game would add 1 guarenteed decent win(assuming Utah, BYU and TCU keep up the pace), and it would help those teams alot in terms of SoS. It also frees up more non-conference games which helps the MWC especially because you guys have to try and schedule harder out of conference games, because there is no strength in conference.
I’m all in favor of a playoff. The SEC championship game this weekend where the #1 and #2 teams are playing is a preview of exactly what that would be. It is a de facto playoff game, because it determines who goes to the championship game. People need to start calling it that – De facto Playoff Game. The excitement and the attention to that game could be used as a reason why playoffs would be good. Look at the attention the game gets.
But until there is a playoff, it’s the SoS that matters. And that isn’t going to change. So the MWC needs to get a championship game, and they need to free up more non-conference games to get some more strength in it. If you look at the list below(screwed up on my reply), then you can see that TCU would have much more strength with only 1 or 2 harder teams on the schedule. A competitive schedule that would get them into the national championship hunt.
SoS is exactly the reason people don’t know if TCU will pass Alabama or Florida loser. Because there only 1 loss is going to be to the #1 team. If TCU has a tougher schedule, it’s not an issue.
Think about it if they gave TCU a championship shot with that schedule. Is that what you would really want to see in college football? Because if that kind of schedule is rewarded in that way, then everyone is going to start going for easier schedules they know will go undefeated.
Penn St. has about the same schedule strength as TCU. And I’d bet money Penn St. would be #4 too if they were undefeated, with the same points being made.
Also, in terms of statistics when compared to who they were against, Texas beats TCU. But TCU beats Florida and Alabama in that manner(overall, not just top 3).
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know that a championship game is needed.
Half of the BCS conferences do fine without one.
Adding Boise State would be a huge plus. Also the bottom of the MWC needs to win better out of confernece. They did this last year, not so much this year.
Most experts have the SEC loser falling between Cincinnati and Boise State. Especially if Texas loses to Nebraska. If Texas beats Nebraska the argument is inconsiquential becasue Texas has the popular vote.
If TCU is invited to the Sugar Bowl and wins they will have a stronger base of support than Utah had last year.
I will not call the SEC championship game a defacto playoff because in no other league can a team go undefeated and be omitted from a playoff.
I do draw a line in SOS requirements that would have excluded Hawaii in 2007. A team must play at least two teams that have been ranked in the final BCS top 25 over the past four years for me to consider them worthy by going undefeated.
TCU’s schedule is far closer to Texas’ than they are to Boise State. To dismiss them based on a schedule they have little control over the confernece games that make up 2/3 of their schedule.
Its not like Texas want to play them in the SWC any more.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 4, 2009 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
The conferences that don’t have a championship game are the ones that get left behind. Both the SEC and the Big12 have championship games, and what conferences have been playing in the national championship lately?
The Pac10 is likely going to a championship game format in the future. I know they are certainly looking at it, and it’s because of what I mentioned before. The extra game does wonders for SoS.
The SEC championship game is not a “de facto playoff” in itself. But it is a “de facto playoff game”. Playoff consists of more than 1 game, but the SEC championship game has the same implicatios and serves the same purpose as a playoff game. But sure, you can’t just have 1 game and call it a playoff, not what I meant.
Cincy will likely pull ahead of TCU this week if they win due to strength of schedule. If Texas loses, then do not be at all surprised if Cincy jumps TCU. Even the defacto conference championship game for them does that.
Boise St. has about the same schedule strength as TCU by my rankings. Maybe just barely tougher. But I don’t think it will be enough for them to pass TCU.
I think if TCU goes to the sugar vs the SEC loser, they have a really good chance of winning it. However, at the end of the day it’s going to be the same thing as with Utah last year – you only beat the 2nd best team in the SEC with your best team.
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Craig Thompson has been a joke. He did a good job in getting more money for tv, but the exposure is a joke. They needed to invite Boise State two years ago, but his stubborn/arrogance may have done the league good by saying he wanted to be assured of a BCS spot. Not inviting Boise to the MWC allowed them to rack up a few good seasons in the top 10 which will transfer to the MWC for the next evaluation period.
by Jeremy Mauss on Dec 4, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Does the current system favor tough scheduling?
I understand that teams in BCS conferences getr a tough test in confernece and don’t need extra game to prove themselves. I am just asking whether the current system favors teams that attmept to scheudle hard or those who prefer to eat cupcakes.
Lets look at the out of conference games of each team. I might add this to the table tomorrow.
Florida: #45 FSU, #52 Troy, #107 FIU, #FCS Charlston Southern
Alabama: #9 Virginia Tech, #107 FIU, #117 North Texas, #FCS Chattanooga
Texas: #53 UCF, #84 Wyoming, #92 LA Monroe, #101 UTEP
TCU: #23 Clemson, #73 SMU, #80 Virginia, #FCS Texas State
Cincinnati: #17 Oregon State, #55 Fresno State, #85 Illinois, #FCS SE Missouri State
Boise State: #6 Oregon, #71 Miami(OH), #90 Tulsa, #115 Bowling Green, #FCS UC Davis
In order of difficulty (after removing the lowest team played):
- Cincinnati
- TCU
- Florida
- Boise State
- Texas
- Alabama
It doesn’t look to me like the current system cares about encouraging compelling regular season games.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 4, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
11-13 games per season.
You have to take into account all the games, not just select the few games to paint a picture.
TCU, Cincy and Boise St. HAVE to schedule harder OOC games in order to make up for the weaker conferences in general. Florida does not have to do that as much due to the overall strength of the SEC.
I do my SoS rankings based on the individual teams, not based on what conference they are in, and the data backs that up. The computer has no idea about “SEC” or “MWC” at all when it ranks. It only ranks based on the teams they played. No bias, Utah was #1 in my rankings with the same formula last year.
If the SEC goes extremely weak next year, and for some reason the MWC is real strong, then Florida and Alabama would have to start scheduling harder OOC games in order to make up for it.
If you don’t believe me, then just do what you did with Texas before and look at the entire schedule with SEC teams in general.
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was rebutting your claim that a playoff would encourage top teams to schedule down.
I don’t see how the current system is not already achieving this.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 4, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because they haven't scheduled down
They play top50 teams week after week. All those 7-5 SEC teams are ranked right around the #50 mark. Many of them are hanging out just outside the top25, and do get top25 votes in the polls.
Those games add up and take a toll.
Alabama, Florida and Texas do not have to schedule tougher out of conference games because of the strength in conference. Still, Alabama usually does atleast 1 a year, next year they play Penn St 2nd game of the season.
Meanwhile the weaker conferences don’t have that luxury and thus need to schedule more OOC games that are tougher to make up for it. You can’t look at what conference the teams are in, if it’s out of conference or whatever, you have to look at the entire schedule.
SoS is relative and is in some ways unpredictable. How many schools circled Notre Dame as a high quality game this year?
I’m in favor of playoff, but I’m talking about the way it is within the current system and what their is to work with. Which is SoS.
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My primary arguement with SOS is fairness
The current scheduling paradigm consumes 2/3 to 3/4 of a teams schedule with traditional rivals and conference opponents.
This only leaves 1/4 to 1/3 of a teams schedule to attempt to address any discrepancies that may exist.
Add to this that the top ranked teams are not looking to add more tough games to an already tough schedule and it is impossible for teams like Cincinnati, TCU ad Boise State to build a convincing schedule.
Besides, the difference between a #50 team and a #70 team is far less than the difference between a #5 team and a #25 team. Once you get into the pack large group of teams are about the same. Teams near the top will destroy any of these teams.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 5, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is why I use a power rating rather than ranks for my SoS rankings
My power rating for a team that I mentioned before is what I use for SoS. The power rating of a team for a lower ranked team can actually be higher than a top team.
It’s a much more fair would of SoS than to use ranking #‘s, or win % like he NCAA’s SOS rankings.
The thing about those schools not being able to get better games is a legitimate concern. However, Utah kind of screwed you guys on that one, because they turned down 2 Florida games. Florida offered to buy out the contracts for 2 years on Utah to get Utah to come to Florida($750,000), but Utah declined.
Utah, Boise St and BYU all would have to travel for those games. No school wants to travel to those areas because they don’t recruit in those areas to care enough.
But I heard that TCU tried to get some games. TCU should be able to get them, because Texas is a good recruiting area.
They need to schedule games between them IMO. TCU vs Cincy, or Pitt. Central Michigan would have been a decent add this year, but that is not really something you can count on every year.
I was disappointed that Alabama had a FCS team. I wish that kind of stuff would stop. But it’s only going to stop when other teams start scheduling tougher schedules and the are the ones who get left behind because of SoS.
I wouldn’t mind the NCAA stepping in and making sure better matchups happen.
by cal n on Dec 5, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MWC needs a championship game if it wants to really be taken seriously
Two points on this comment.
First, a conference cannot stage a championship game unless the conference has 12 or more teams. So unless you are going to cannibalize the WAC, it cannot happen. If that occurs, you will actually be weakening the MWC because there really is only one team in that conference to be added and then two more scrub teams.
Second. Does the championship game really help Conference USA and the MAC? Really?
SoS matters to everyone,
This is blatantly false. Have you seen the Florida schedule this year? They have played one ranked team this year, an overrated LSU (until this week that is). Wasn’t everybody lambasted Ohio State the year they lost to LSU because they had a weak OOC schedule? Yet, they still made the Title game.
SoS matters to most of us who criticize the BCS, but 2/3 of the BCS formula are the coaches and Harris polls, who really do not incorporate SoS into their rankings.
by talonk on Dec 4, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it helps them.
The Pac10 is looking into a championship game. Don’t know if it will happen or not, but the Pac10 commish was asked this specific question on inside college football and his response was that he was basically brought into the Pac10 for these kinds of reasons, to make the Pac10 more competitive etc in things.
And yes, the CUSA and MAC championship games help those conferences. But it doesn’t erase the rest of the season or anything. It would mean alot more if the conferences themselves were more competitive, which is something the MWC is starting to get with Utah, BYU and TCU.
Florida has SoS because it plays in the SEC. Aside from that, you can’t just pretend the season only consists of a few games, and nothing else matters. If you look at the ranks of the SEC teams themselves, then you can see why. Have to take the entire schedule into consideration.
Yes, that is a luxury the MWC doesn’t have. But you gotta play the hand you are dealt, not someone elses. If the SEC goes real weak next year, then it will be Florida with the weak schedule.
Florida’s schedule was not all that strong, and was 3rd among the top3 teams. But the SEC championship game put them over the top.
You are kidding yourself if you don’t think SoS matters in those polls. They do, the coaches and voters apply it with their heads. Look at the Harris poll, who are the top 3? Why? SoS.
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A PAC 10 champinship game?
What two teams would they expand to make a 12 team conference and what would the divisions look like?
I have heard talk that the PAC 10 also wants to go back to an 8 game conference format so they don’t eliminate each other in conference.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 4, 2009 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is possible too
The commish(I’m terrible with names) certainly didn’t say they were for sure going for a championship game, but that was the question that was asked(would they ever do a championship game).
In his response, his basic goal was to make the Pac10 more competitive with the other conferences(those with championship games, big12, SEC etc), and that the championship game was 1 option being looked at.
So, no clue what they will end up doing, but they are certainly looking to making changes.
Also, why do you need 12 teams in order to do a championship game? I can see why a championship game is almost a must for a 12 team conference, but I don’t see why that is the case in reverse. If you did the round robin thing with 12 teams, they wouldn’t have any games left for OOC. And the % way the SEC used to do had it’s problems as well.
What am I missing there?
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The NCAA bylaws
that allow a conference championship game require a conferences to have 12 teams in two divisions.
Either they would need to comply with this rule or petition to have it changed.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 5, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, I didn't know that.
Seems like a dumb rule to me. They should change it or do whatever is needed to make things even.
by cal n on Dec 5, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The dumb rule
… was the one allowing championship games to begin with. It was put in place for a lower-division conference. They ended up not holding a championship game, but the SEC noticed it and raided the SWC for Arkansas and picked up independent South Carolina for 12 teams.
Which led to pretty much all the conference movement since then. If not for conference championship games, you’d likely still have eastern independents other than ND and the service academies, there wouldn’t be a Big 12 (the SWC and Big 8 would still exist, though BYU, Utah, and Boise may have joined one or the other), there wouldn’t be a Big East football conference, and the 11-team Big Ten would never have happened. All of which were Bad Things in the real world, I think.
by drothgery on Dec 5, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno
If that is a problem, then why not just get rid of conferences completely?
by cal n on Dec 6, 2009 5:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm okay with conferences that grow and change organically
I’m not in favor of outright moneygrab moves (the SEC and ACC expansions to 12 games), or the results of desperation manuevers (forming the Big 12; forming the Big East football conference when only one founding member — my Orange — played I-A football and only two pre-1990 members did; FSU to the ACC; PSU to the Big Ten; the wanderings of the SWC teams that didn’t get in the Big 12 among the WAC, CUSA, and the MWC).
Conference championship games have been the pretext for the biggest outright moneygrab moves, and the ripple effects from those moneygrab moves were most of the desperation moves.
by drothgery on Dec 6, 2009 11:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fine, we can do it that way.
We can do it that way, but lets do it right and put them together in the order they appear, rather than trying to find how many even games you can find that TCU played.
TEXAS: #18 Nebraska – not played yet
TCU: #19 BYU – 38 to 7
TEXAS: #22 Oklahoma St. – 41 to 14
TCU: #23 Clemson – 14 to 10
TEXAS: #25Oklahoma – 16 to 13
TCU: #31 Utah – 55 to 28
TEXAS: #26 Texas Tech – 34 to 24
TCU: #54 Air Force – 20 to 17
TEXAS: #37 Missouri – 41 to 7
TCU: #73 SMU
TEXAS: #53 UCF – 35 to 3
TCU: #80 Virginia
TEXAS: #58 Texas A&M – 49 to 39
TCU: #84 Wyoming
TEXAS: #67 Kansas
TCU: #87 UNLV
TEXAS: #78 Baylor
TCU: #99 SDSU
TEXAS: #84 Wyoming
TCU: #104 Colorado St.
TEXAS: #86 Colorado
TCU: #116 New Mexico
TEXAS: #92 LA Monroe
TCU: #FCS Texas State
TEXAS: #101 UTEP
And thus, Texas has a much tougher schedule than TCU. off by 20+ ranks in points, not to mention TCU plays a FCS team and Texas doesn’t.
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Pay special attention to this part
This part right here is what shows it, easily over 100 pts of ranking distance in just this area alone, not to mention Texas being ahead in each matchup, so TCU never goes in the other direction:
TEXAS: #26 Texas Tech – 34 to 24
TCU: #54 Air Force – 20 to 17
TEXAS: #37 Missouri – 41 to 7
TCU: #73 SMU
TEXAS: #53 UCF – 35 to 3
TCU: #80 Virginia
TEXAS: #58 Texas A&M – 49 to 39
TCU: #84 Wyoming
TEXAS: #67 Kansas
TCU: #87 UNLV
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I am biased.
but these kinds of arguments should be settled on the field, not on a blog.
Let the teams play and lets see how it turns out. In a real game, not our projections on a spread sheet.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 4, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
don't disagree
But they don’t let me choose or make the rules.
by cal n on Dec 4, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Suggestion
For next time, use per play data, not game totals.
Good piece.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Dec 5, 2009 11:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think both would be better
People are familiar with totals and this is what most outlets use for comparison.
I really want to write a program that will compile the statistics for all teams and generate rankings that are adjusted similar to how Wes Colley adjusts the W-L records based on how well your opponent opposed a given stat.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
by utesfan100 on Dec 5, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
