By Hugh Falk, Pollspeak.com
The BCS standings are finally out. That means we can stop debating how each team is going to be ranked in the BCS and start debating how each team is actually ranked in the BCS. Many people only care about No. 1 and No. 2 since those are the teams that will be playing in the championship game. As expected, those teams this week are Florida and Alabama. However, if they continue to win, they'll meet in the SEC championship game, which will likely knock one of them out of contention. So fans really need to look at who is No. 3. Right now that is Texas. If the Longhorns win out, they should end up in the BCS title game.
The teams on the outside, still hoping for a shot are Boise State, Cincinnati, Iowa, USC and TCU. However, none of those teams have the strength of schedule remaining to overtake Texas. So a Texas loss would be necessary. Of course, if USC didn't have the one loss already, they would be fighting it out with Texas (likely ahead of Texas right now), but as it is, the Trojans are a dark horse for the title game. If Texas does falter, it will likely be a toss-up between Iowa and Cincinnati who are currently separated by one-thousandth of a point. Either one could jump Boise State in the BCS depending on how the human voters rank one over the other in the final week. The best chance the Broncos have of becoming the first BCS title-game buster is for Oregon to go undefeated (taking care of USC in the process), and for a few of the teams listed above to stumble. Even then the chances for Boise State are slimmer than seeing an anorexic snapping into a Slim Jim.
Obviously the BCS computers can make a difference when things are close, but the human element weighs far more heavily into the BCS formula. For evidence, look no further than Ohio State, which is ranked No. 19 in the BCS due almost completely to the Buckeyes' No. 17 rankings in both human polls. No computer ranking below No. 25 counts toward the BCS formula, and Ohio State only received two rankings from computers…both No. 25, and one of those gets dropped by the formula. Likewise, Kansas is ranked No. 25 in the BCS based mainly on its No. 21 rankings in the human polls. Only one of the six computers ranked the Jayhawks, which again gets dropped by the formula. So teams on the bubble really need the human voters to smile upon them.
On the other hand, there are Wisconsin and Arizona who are both ranked in the BCS (No. 21 and No. 22 respectively) even though they aren't ranked in the top 25 by either human poll. The computer average for both teams is No. 14, which definitely helped them get ranked. So why did I just say that humans have a much stronger say in the BCS? Well these teams demonstrate another "trick" the BCS uses to give humans more pull. Computer rankings don't count at all when they rank a team below No. 25. However, when humans rank a team below No. 25, they still get some points. Wisconsin was ranked No. 38 by Harris Interactive and No. 31 by the Coaches' Poll. Arizona was ranked No. 37 by Harris Interactive and No. 40 by the Coaches' Poll. The small amount of points they received from a minority of voters, coupled with high computer rankings were enough to get them into the BCS.
Looking at the human polls, Harris Interactive was the only poll not to rank South Carolina in the top 25. Meanwhile the coaches have Iowa (No. 8) and Oregon (No. 14) lower than any other BCS component and the AP. Likewise, they have Mississippi (No. 25) and Oklahoma State (No. 12) highest.
The biggest news in the AP Poll is that Alabama claimed the No.1 spot over Florida after the Gator's narrow victory against Arkansas. Again, it doesn't really matter for the AP championship since they would meet first in the SEC title game. However, it does mean that Florida won't earn the elusive wire-to-wire No. 1 in the AP. That has only been accomplished twice in AP history: FSU in 1999 and USC in 2004.
Last week, there were a lot of fan comments about whether the media has a pro-Notre Dame or anti-Notre Dame bias. Using this-week's AP as an example, there weren't many voters ranking either Notre Dame or Michigan (who has a better record and beat the Irish.) However, of those who did vote for one, 14 of 23 ranked Notre Dame higher. In fact the Irish were ranked high enough to check in at number 26 in the AP Poll. However, in defense of the media, most computers also rank Notre Dame higher than Michigan, and two of them have the Irish in the top 25.
Four voters have Mississippi over South Carolina even though the Gamecocks have a better record and beat the Rebels in the head to head matchup. No poll or computer agrees with these four "rebel" voters.
Two voters, led by Chris Fowler, have Oregon ranked over undefeated Boise State. Again no poll or computer agrees with them, but if enough like-minded voters exist in the BCS polls, it will kill what little chance the Broncos have of making it to the BCS title game. It might sound silly, but a marketing campaign (similar to what schools already do for Heisman hopefuls), might actually help teams on the BCS bubble. Weather the ads really works or not, I wouldn't be surprised to see them as long as voters get to call the shots. So someday we'll see commercials like: "Boise: Just Blue It." and "Only you can prevent potato fires" and maybe even "Please don't squeeze the Broncos (out of the BCS title game.)"
Bonus Slogans:
"Broncos, the other white meat."
"Where do you want to go today?" (to the BCS title game)
"The best part of waking up…is Broncos in your bowl."
Feel free to suggest more…
Sarah Brandner
Melissa Satta
Arizona Rattlers Cheerleaders
Biggest Retirements of 2010
Comments (69) Add A Comment
Two words: playoff system
johnny too good
Savannah , GA
Total Comments (26)
"Two words: playoff system" <---This.
IDNICK
Boise , ID
Total Comments (1)
Boise State's last loss? TCU. Never Forget!
tonioloc
Madison, TN
Total Comments (2)
I think you are looking at Sagarin's 1st basketball ranking this week. You probably should have known that with the Big Ten being #1.
Devilsh
Scottsdale , AZ
Total Comments (2)
So...your whole premise that the conferences are "really close from top to bottom" is flawed because of this.
Devilsh
Scottsdale , AZ
Total Comments (2)
DEFINITELY need a playoff format. The good ol boys have been controling this thing for TOO LONG. They try and get the same few teams in every year. With the 1st POPULARITY POLL to the BS or bcs poll. It seems every year, usc loses to a WEAK TEAM and every year, they keep em right up there like their PETS. And every year, some or most of their PETS, get exposed by their popular poll rankings,{and get dropped in the polls, some more or less than others, depending on their status with the gods, which prejudically control the rankings and assignment of the championship crown. A playoff format would leave it up to the COLLEGE PLAYERS to decide it on the field, instead of a POPULARITY CONTEST. But, why would they want ot change it? they've been getting FAT off the current system for years.
Tiger683
Grove City , OH
Total Comments (3)
The biggest issue facing Non-BCS teams is that every year they have to start over. TCU finished 7 in the coaches poll, yet started the season 17. It's taken them all season to get back to where they were at the end of last season. This gives them no chance to play for a national title. This is garbage
They dont get the love that BCS teams get. In fact, LSU was unranked at the end of last year and they were STILL ranked ahead of TCU. USC lost to a team that didnt win a game last year and they're STILL ahead of TCU. This is garbage.
Boise State was and is ranked ahead of TCU. A team that shut them out in their bowl game last year. This is garbage.
And a preemptive note for all you homer fans that want to say "TCU would get killed by 'insert football factory here'" I **** dare you to schedule a home and home with them and find out for yourself. Ask Oklahoma, Virginia and Clemson if you need advice. And those were on the road. God help you if you sack up and come to Ft. Worth...
Suicidaire
Total Comments (93)
That's a very perceptive comment about the true disadvantage that the non-BCS schools face.
TCU's dilemma traces back to the dissolution of the SWC. In all truth, TCU probably should have been invited to the Big XII instead of Baylor.
The_Guvnah
Austin , TX
Total Comments (363)
The comparison of Oregon and USC is interesting in this regard. USC's poll rankings were 4-4-4 but it was 7th in the BCS, so the poll rankings pulled it higher than objective factors;absent being boosted by the polls, it actual ranking would be below 7th. Conversely, Oregon is ranked 12-14-14 in the polls, but 11th in the BCS, so the poll rankings pulled it down by at least 3 positions. That subjective poll distortion is borne out by the respective records. USC lost to Washington, which is a lower tier team, and its standing is not blemished. Oregon lost its coach's first game, on the road, to Boise State, a first tier team. But USC is ranked higher. USC boasts that it beat Ohio State; Oregon beat Purdue which creamed Ohio State. And Oregon beat ranked Utah and then demolished No. 6 Cal. While USC was slipping past (yawn) Notre Dame? Yet you say USC is a contender and Oregon is not. Subjective polls are distorted by regional boosterism and they render the BCS a sham. PLAY OFF.
Paulbythebay
Total Comments (1)
The computers screw Pac Ten teams because they punish losses indiscriminantly. So, the Pac Ten suffers in the computers because:
(1) all its teams play a ninth conference game (adding automatic losses to Pac Ten teams' records)
(2) half its teams play a common opponent, Notre Dame (adding more automatic losses to their strength of schedule);
(3) almost all of its teams play at least two quality ooc opponents in addition to their nine conference games (thereby increasing the likelihood of losses).
I'm sure some folks will say the Pac Ten brings this on itself for not scheduling more Charleston Southerns, Chattanoogas, Florida Internationals, and hypenated-Louisiana teams. But true college football fans should be rising up to complain about weak scheduling, not rewarding teams (like Boise, Texas, Penn State, and the like) who avoid challenging games rather than playing an "any given Saturday" schedule.
Sunshine Boy
Total Comments (116)
The only reason TCU was not invited was because our then Gov, ole Blue Hair, and her Lt. Gov. were Baylor grads and wouldn't allow the state schools to join without Baylor. It was cronyism and politics at its usual worse. The Big XII wanted a school in the DFW TV market, and SMU after the death penalty was not even an option. They would have preferred Houston over Baylor as well, Houston TV market. Frankly, TCU has not only survived, but thrived, and a soon as Boise State, Houston, and Fresno State are adding to make 12 teams, 2 divisions, this conference will be a yearly smash mouth force to be reckoned with. Look out ACC and Big Least, they will be coming for your BCS bid!
HornedFrog1992
Total Comments (5)
Well, perhaps the Big 10+1 will take Iowa State, Choklahoma will move to the North and TCU can join the South and we can put this to bed.
BTW...im in Austin as well. Looks like we're gonna have to win out to stave off "the system."
Suicidaire
Total Comments (93)
The solution is soo simple yet so hard to achieve! Playoff! It's time!
gemsurf
Olympia , WA
Total Comments (48)
Y'all should check out this article on Yahoo, gives a great breakdown of why it would be smarter for the big schools not to schedule tough out of conference opponents if they want to do well in the BCS standings. Good read:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=Ai2jYoRNOnfVM.OHjEWbIiU5nY cB?slug=dw-bcs102009&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Saqalicious
Total Comments (3)
There will never be a playoff until the BCS conferences who effectively control the NCAA can be shown that their share of the cash under a playoff will not be less than under the current system. Obama had no effect on them and neither will anyone else. Only until an anti-trust case starts moving and the elite conferences believe they may lose everything will ther be any movement to an equitable playoff.
Misch
Total Comments (134)
Couldn't have made a better argument if I tried. Please, someone answer this for me. We need to find a way that teams past success (years past) don't keep them inflated in the rankings.
scabone4
Portland , OR
Total Comments (2)
antitrust case? you a law professor there Misch?
DarrenWoodsonIsAGod
Iowa City , IA
Total Comments (5)
Give the computers back the 2/3 BCS vote. At least then you won't have the ignorant crap from the voters, most of which have no clue, throwing rankings so out of wack, i.e USC in the top 5 after losing to a 3-4 WA team, or the spat of no name's breaking the top 15 after 1 big game against against a ranked team.
Yeppers
Total Comments (8)
So USC is basically forgiven for a terrible loss that would sink the hopes of virtually any other program in the country?
What else is new?
The_Guvnah
Austin , TX
Total Comments (363)
Sunshine Boy:
Precisely what challenging games has Texas "avoided"? Unlike perennial FCS schedulers Florida and Oklahoma, Texas has scheduled only one FCS opponent in Mack Brown's entire 12-season tenure.
Texas played a home-and-home with Ohio State in 2005-06;
Texas played a ranked TCU in 2007 and Arkansas in 2008, and would have played Arkansas again had the Hogs not backed out.
There is a home-and-home with UCLA starting next year; and Ole Miss the two following years.
Looking way down the road, we're scheduling home-and-homes with Cal and Minnesota.
Just last year, Texas beat four teams who were ranked in the top 11 at the time, and played FIVE teams that ended up winning at least nine games!
Oklahoma 12-2; bowl game
Texas Tech 11-2; bowl game
Rice 10-3; bowl game
Oklahoma St 9-4; bowl game
Missouri 9-4; bowl game
Do you have any idea wtf you're talking about?
The_Guvnah
Austin , TX
Total Comments (363)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.