2013 NCAA College Football

[TN94z]

But you have to see that's circular logic, right?  You're ranking teams based on strength of schedule, but the strength of schedule is based on the ranking of the teams they play.

I'm not saying I have a better way, but I don't think rankings are a perfect representation of the relative abilities of different teams in different conferences.  If we're going to use rankings, let's at least see them for what they are.

Yes.  But if Team A is beating all the teams that are beating everyone else, then it works. You have to take in account the schedules of the teams that Team A is beating as well as Team A's schedule.  Obviously there are holes in the system, but what can you do but go by that criteria?   I see what you are saying though. I am not taking up for the ranking system by any means, but that is just my opinion on what we have right now.

[saevel25]

Yes.  But if Team A is beating all the teams that are beating everyone else, then it works. You have to take in account the schedules of the teams that Team A is beating as well as Team A's schedule.  Obviously there are holes in the system, but what can you do but go by that criteria?   I see what you are saying though. I am not taking up for the ranking system by any means, but that is just my opinion on what we have right now.

But what if those other teams are beating teams that are terrible? Then that means those teams are not as good as their record indicates right? How many levels of regression do you need to get a complete picture.

[TN94z]

But what if those other teams are beating teams that are terrible? Then that means those teams are not as good as their record indicates right? How many levels of regression do you need to get a complete picture.

Yes they are not as good as their record indicates and we see teams have this issue most years once they run up against a team that is actually good. I see what you guys are saying and I'm not really disputing that.  Some difference comes in when you are beating the teams that are consistently in the hunt for championships year in and year out.  Teams that have a history of being top teams.  Now I understand that it all has to go back to the beginning, but still I don't know of any other way to do it.

[Harmonious]

But what if those other teams are beating teams that are terrible? Then that means those teams are not as good as their record indicates right? How many levels of regression do you need to get a complete picture.

There's the rub. My problem with the SEC-lovers' argument is that they keep repeating that SEC teams play more ranked opponents. But if all the SEC teams (for whatever reason) are ranked higher than they deserve in the preseason and play patsies out of conference, how could they not be ranked higher at the end of the season?

Auburn is a good case in point. They have a good conference record, losing only to LSU which was #6 at the time but has since shown to have been overranked. They barely beat Washington State at home, and WSU is a PAC-12 doormat (2-4 in conference). Their only "good" win was over Texas A&M.; Are they really the #7 team in the country? But they are from the SEC, so they get extra points for that alone.

Granted, the best team in the SEC has been dominant over the past years, but does that automatically mean that all other teams in the conference which were beaten by that one team are better than also-rans in other conferences? I don't think so. Not unless they start playing each other more.

[k-troop]

But what if those other teams are beating teams that are terrible? Then that means those teams are not as good as their record indicates right? How many levels of regression do you need to get a complete picture.

Beating a mediocre team doesn't mean you're worse than another team that beats a good team.  There are really only two outcomes in College Football that tell you a lot about the team in question:

1. Losing to a bad team, and

2. Beating a good team.

If you have teams from different conferences with similar records, and both have one loss to a good team (i.e. Stanford, Clemson, and Missouri), then you can't really know which team is better until they play each other or have a sufficient number of games against common teams.

And I think there's an inherent conference bias in favor of SEC teams and traditional powerhouses in the rankings (though Mizzou's ranking doesn't reflect it).  Look at Aggy vs. Oklahoma State.  Aggy is ranked higher with two losses than Okie State with only one loss.  Who has Aggy beaten?  Ole Miss?  Vandy?  These are not great teams.  Okie St has at least beaten one "ranked" team (Texas Tech), but Tech's ranking was crap too.  They made it to #12 based on six straight wins against scrub teams, then lost three straight.  But Okie St still gets credit for a win against a #12 team because that's what they were ranked at the time, even though the ranking didn't reflect the team at all.

Mizz should be ranked higher than they are.  They won at UGA, beat Florida, and their only loss was in OT against a very good SoCar team.  I think they're lower than they should be because of where they started and the fact that they're Missouri, not Texas or Oklahoma or Alabama or Florida.

[TN94z]

Beating a mediocre team doesn't mean you're worse than another team that beats a good team.  There are really only two outcomes in College Football that tell you a lot about the team in question:

1. Losing to a bad team, and

2. Beating a good team.

If you have teams from different conferences with similar records, and both have one loss to a good team (i.e. Stanford, Clemson, and Missouri), then you can't really know which team is better until they play each other or have a sufficient number of games against common teams.

I feel like I'm not really getting my point across in my posts here.  It may be that I'm trying to do this while working my trouble tickets at work..haha!   But you pretty much said most of what I'm thinking here.

[k-troop]

I feel like I'm not really getting my point across in my posts here.  It may be that I'm trying to do this while working my trouble tickets at work..haha!   But you pretty much said most of what I'm thinking here.

Yeah I don't think you and I disagree at all.

BTW I'll add that I love the ranking system (even though I don't necessarily think it's perfect) because it makes for great discussion and argument.  Also there's nothing better than when you get to week 8 or 9 in the CFB season and your team has one loss but is still ranked in the top-10.  All of the sudden there are like six or seven games every Saturday that you're going to take a direct interest in because they might affect the ranking of the teams above you.  The ranking system makes more games more fun to watch because every game--hell even the margin of victory--matters so much.

I'm a Texas fan.  I'm just hoping for a win against Baylor and a conference championship (and a trip to the Fiesta Bowl) this year.  The rankings mean nothing to me this year.  If Texas were a one-loss team sitting behind a pile of (clearly overrated) SEC and Pac-12 teams I'd probably be a lot more vocal in this thread.  :-)

[Golfingdad]

OK, this is one of those situations where I sort of backed myself into a corner where I'm arguing against somebody I don't even disagree with.  I agree with every single thing you just said.  :)

I just have a bit of a chip on my shoulder towards the human polls sometimes. ;)  It usually only flares up when in those years when we've had an undefeated Boise State or TCU kept behind a handful of one (and sometimes even 2) loss AQ teams, just because of the misfortune of being in a weak league.

But you have to see that's circular logic, right?  You're ranking teams based on strength of schedule, but the strength of schedule is based on the ranking of the teams they play.

I'm not saying I have a better way, but I don't think rankings are a perfect representation of the relative abilities of different teams in different conferences.  If we're going to use rankings, let's at least see them for what they are.

Exactly.  Another problem lies with the human polls at the beginning of the season.  They are complete, arbitrary guesses based on the previous year, prospects and hunches.  if Alabama wins all of their games after getting an undeserved preseason #1 vote, and Florida State wins all of their games after an equally undeserved #12 ranking, then Alabama has an unfair advantage.

I believe that one way to curb this would be to just not start the coaches poll until several weeks into the season ... like the BCS poll.  The problem with the BCS poll is (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) it's still heavily based on the coaches poll so its still going to have a preseason bias built in, no matter how long they wait to release the results.

Of course, all of that said, it's fun to talk about this and argue all throughout September, October and November, but usually ... USUALLY ... this stuff all works itself out naturally by the time bowl season rolls around.

Though, its starting to look like there is a good chance there will be 4 undefeateds this year ... too bad the playoffs didn't start this season.  (The controversy between 4 and 5 right now would be all anybody would be talking about!) :)

[TN94z]

Yeah I don't think you and I disagree at all.

BTW I'll add that I love the ranking system (even though I don't necessarily think it's perfect) because it makes for great discussion and argument.  Also there's nothing better than when you get to week 8 or 9 in the CFB season and your team has one loss but is still ranked in the top-10.  All of the sudden there are like six or seven games every Saturday that you're going to take a direct interest in because they might affect the ranking of the teams above you.  The ranking system makes more games more fun to watch because every game--hell even the margin of victory--matters so much.

I'm a Texas fan.  I'm just hoping for a win against Baylor and a conference championship (and a trip to the Fiesta Bowl) this year.  The rankings mean nothing to me this year.  If Texas were a one-loss team sitting behind a pile of (clearly overrated) SEC and Pac-12 teams I'd probably be a lot more vocal in this thread.  :-)

Yeah, I'm a Vols fan so the rankings haven't meant much to me in quite some time...haha!  But that excitement is great.  Drives my wife crazy though

[Golfingdad]

They made it to #12 based on six straight wins against scrub teams, then lost three straight.  But Okie St still gets credit for a win against a #12 team because that's what they were ranked at the time, even though the ranking didn't reflect the team at all.

I'm not so sure it works like this.  I believe that your SOS power fluxuates all season long as your previous opponents continue to win or lose.  Of course, if you mean the immediate jump you recieved in the human polls, then yes, you are right.  A "big" early season win against a highly ranked team gives you a boost, but they aren't going to retroactively drop you back down if they realize a few weeks later that your opponent actually sucked.

Yeah I don't think you and I disagree at all.

BTW I'll add that I love the ranking system (even though I don't necessarily think it's perfect) because it makes for great discussion and argument.  Also there's nothing better than when you get to week 8 or 9 in the CFB season and your team has one loss but is still ranked in the top-10.  All of the sudden there are like six or seven games every Saturday that you're going to take a direct interest in because they might affect the ranking of the teams above you.  The ranking system makes more games more fun to watch because every game--hell even the margin of victory--matters so much.

I'm a Texas fan.  I'm just hoping for a win against Baylor and a conference championship (and a trip to the Fiesta Bowl) this year.  The rankings mean nothing to me this year.  If Texas were a one-loss team sitting behind a pile of (clearly overrated) SEC and Pac-12 teams I'd probably be a lot more vocal in this thread.  :-)

So if this happens, and my boys also crash the party and magically end up in the Fiesta Bowl as your opponent, I'm thinking we both go and schedule some Scottsdale golf in there as well!!

[k-troop]

I'm not so sure it works like this.  I believe that your SOS power fluxuates all season long as your previous opponents continue to win or lose.  Of course, if you mean the immediate jump you recieved in the human polls, then yes, you are right.  A "big" early season win against a highly ranked team gives you a boost, but they aren't going to retroactively drop you back down if they realize a few weeks later that your opponent actually sucked.

Yeah, the computer polls will change the relative SOS factor for a given team based on their total performance throughout the season.  But the humans still remember that Clemson beat a #5 ranked Georgia even though UGA isn't even close to being that good.  (And BTW that's Clemson's only win against a ranked team, so why are they ranked higher than Mizzou??)

So if this happens, and my boys also crash the party and magically end up in the Fiesta Bowl as your opponent, I'm thinking we both go and schedule some Scottsdale golf in there as well!!

In!!!

[saevel25]

If they wanted to make the BCS rankings better, dump the coaches poll. They have no time to watch every game, and have no clue who is better or not. They might know their conference, but that is about the extent of useful knowledge they can us to make a reasonable ranking. Make the computer poll's weighting higher in the equations.

[Golfingdad]

If they wanted to make the BCS rankings better, dump the coaches poll. They have no time to watch every game, and have no clue who is better or not. They might know their conference, but that is about the extent of useful knowledge they can us to make a reasonable ranking. Make the computer poll's weighting higher in the equations.

Yeah, I agree with that.  However, we have seen some situations in the past where there have been some major bugs in some of those computer polls.  Like, one of them would randomly have Ohio State 7th and Baylor 18th and Stanford 2nd, or something to that effect.  And I think it was like some top secret deal where they didn't have to share their formulas with us.

Overall I think the BCS is the best "bad" system we've had, and they have only been improving it over time.  Next year ... playoffs!!!  I don't know the ins and outs of the bureaucracy, so I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here, but I'd imagine before long we'll see an 8-team playoff.  That would probably be the end of it and satisfy just about everybody out there.  8 just seems right, you know?

I'm much more intrigued by the idea of Fresno State (currently 14th) playing Texas in the Fiesta Bowl - or according to one ESPN analyst right now, Auburn in the Sugar Bowl - than playing at Ohio State (currently 3rd) or Florida State or Alabama in the "Sweet 16."  Although that would be pretty awesome too, don't get me wrong.

[saevel25]

Yeah, I agree with that.  However, we have seen some situations in the past where there have been some major bugs in some of those computer polls.  Like, one of them would randomly have Ohio State 7th and Baylor 18th and Stanford 2nd, or something to that effect.  And I think it was like some top secret deal where they didn't have to share their formulas with us.

Overall I think the BCS is the best "bad" system we've had, and they have only been improving it over time.  Next year ... playoffs!!!  I don't know the ins and outs of the bureaucracy, so I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here, but I'd imagine before long we'll see an 8-team playoff.  That would probably be the end of it and satisfy just about everybody out there.  8 just seems right, you know?

I'm much more intrigued by the idea of Fresno State (currently 14th) playing Texas in the Fiesta Bowl - or according to one ESPN analyst right now, Auburn in the Sugar Bowl - than playing at Ohio State (currently 3rd) or Florida State or Alabama in the "Sweet 16."  Although that would be pretty awesome too, don't get me wrong.

Honestly I don't think the 8th rank team in the nation deserves to be in consideration for the National Championship.

Right now you would have,

Alabama, FSU, OSU Stanford, Baylor, Oregon, Auburn, Clemson.

By the end of the year if the top 6 win out, you'll have Auburn at 2 losses, and Missouri at 2 losses. Loosing late will probably drop them outside the top 8. So you have the next best up. Which would be Texas A&M;, and South Carolina.

Do you honestly think both those teams deserve a shot for the NC game. I don't think they do. I also think there should be no Automatic Qualifiers for the BCS playoff. Who would want a 13th rank UCLA in there, when Oregon is at 6th, but could be shunted out of the game because Stanford beat them. I think the top 6 highest ranked teams go. I could care less if 3 are from one division or not.

I don't mind the top 4.

[Golfingdad]

Honestly I don't think the 8th rank team in the nation deserves to be in consideration for the National Championship.

Right now you would have,

Alabama, FSU, OSU Stanford, Baylor, Oregon, Auburn, Clemson.

By the end of the year if the top 6 win out, you'll have Auburn at 2 losses, and Missouri at 2 losses. Loosing late will probably drop them outside the top 8. So you have the next best up. Which would be Texas A&M;, and South Carolina.

Do you honestly think both those teams deserve a shot for the NC game. I don't think they do. I also think there should be no Automatic Qualifiers for the BCS playoff. Who would want a 13th rank UCLA in there, when Oregon is at 6th, but could be shunted out of the game because Stanford beat them. I think the top 6 highest ranked teams go. I could care less if 3 are from one division or not.

I don't mind the top 4.

To me, when considering whether 4 is correct or 8 is correct, t's not really about the 7th and 8th teams, it's about the 4th and 5th teams.  As it sits now, we're telling Baylor that they don't deserve a shot at the title because, why again?  If Stanford got in and they didn't, they'd have a legitimate beef.  If Clemson got in and Missouri didnt?  Meh, well, neither of them were likely beating Alabama or FSU anyway, plus you gotta draw the line somewhere.

And I agree with you about no AQ's in a playoff.  That would be wrong.  Although in your example, for UCLA to get in that means winning the Pac-12 championship, which would include wins over #19 ASU, previously ranked and on the verge of returning Washington, previously ranked and on the verge of returning USC, and almost certainly, #4 Stanford in a rematch.  If they did have auto qualifiers, I wouldn't sweat UCLA because to auto-qualify they'd be 6th or 7th, not 14th.  A better example would be @k-troop 's Longhorns.  They could win an auto bid for the Big 12 and I doubt they'll crack the Top 10.

[k-troop]

For me it's not so much about declaring a National Champion in CFB as having a lot of really good bowl games.  I think recognizing the true "champion" team is important, but I don't think it's as important as big bowl games with champions from big conferences.  So I guess I'm in favor of the AQ for the major bowls.  Actually I really like the "Plus 1" concept where you pick a new #1 and #2 after the four BCS bowl games and have those teams play for the NC--but at a different bowl stadium (we don't need two Rose Bowls or Sugar Bowls in any given year).  I'd pick JerryWorld or Reliant Stadium in Houston.

Also, since the power football conferences seem to be consolidating, I think I'd be in favor of only having the SEC, Big-10, Pac-12, Big-12, and ACC get AQs, and excluding those conferences from the at-large bids, which would guarantee 3 chances for the Fresno States, Boise States, etc.  If you're from one of those conferences and you want to play in a BCS game (or play for the NC in a top-8 playoff), win your conference.  End of story.  That's what the NFL does.  The Cowboys will probably go to the playoffs this year with 8 wins, which may be unfair to 10-win teams who will miss out on the playoffs.  But whatever--win your division and you're in.

[saevel25]

For me it's not so much about declaring a National Champion in CFB as having a lot of really good bowl games.  I think recognizing the true "champion" team is important, but I don't think it's as important as big bowl games with champions from big conferences.  So I guess I'm in favor of the AQ for the major bowls.  Actually I really like the "Plus 1" concept where you pick a new #1 and #2 after the four BCS bowl games and have those teams play for the NC--but at a different bowl stadium (we don't need two Rose Bowls or Sugar Bowls in any given year).  I'd pick JerryWorld or Reliant Stadium in Houston.

Also, since the power football conferences seem to be consolidating, I think I'd be in favor of only having the SEC, Big-10, Pac-12, Big-12, and ACC get AQs, and excluding those conferences from the at-large bids, which would guarantee 3 chances for the Fresno States, Boise States, etc.  If you're from one of those conferences and you want to play in a BCS game (or play for the NC in a top-8 playoff), win your conference.  End of story.  That's what the NFL does.  The Cowboys will probably go to the playoffs this year with 8 wins, which may be unfair to 10-win teams who will miss out on the playoffs.  But whatever--win your division and you're in.

Who cares how the NFL does it. I rather not have the NFL way of doing it.

I honestly think divisions are the most unfair method of organizing and finding a true champion. I like a round robin style, everyone plays everyone, at least to the best of the ability of what can be scheduled. How many times has a better ACC team get bumped to a crappy bowl. If you want better bowl games ditch the AQs.

[Golfingdad]

Who cares how the NFL does it. I rather not have the NFL way of doing it.

I honestly think divisions are the most unfair method of organizing and finding a true champion. I like a round robin style, everyone plays everyone, at least to the best of the ability of what can be scheduled. How many times has a better ACC team get bumped to a crappy bowl. If you want better bowl games ditch the AQs.

Just remember that this goes both ways, and is still highly dependent on polls.  The good ACC team probably has a better chance at getting bumped to a crappy bowl if there are not any AQ's.  Look at UCF right now, for example.  They have one loss, early in the season by a field goal to South Carolina.  They have nobody remaining on their schedule so they'll need teams to lose to move up.  They could finish the season in the same spot they are now ... #17.  Without AQ's, they're screwed.  Then take Stanford ... they lost to Utah, and I don't think many people would argue that Utah is nearly as good as South Carolina.

I think that the idea of not having AQ's is a good experiment, but it's not going to solve a lot of problems, just give us different ones. ;)

Currently we're set for a Bama vs. FSU Title game and a Stanford vs. Ohio State Rose Bowl.  Those are some pretty danged juicy games.