November 29, 2007
BYU dumped for Grambling
The University of Nevada has dropped BYU from its schedule.
Nevada will play Grambling State, Texas Tech, Missouri and UNLV. It appears Grambling replaces BYU on the Wolfpack schedule.
Said Nevada athletics director Cary Groth in the release: "I have said before that we are committed to bringing high-quality opponents to Mackay Stadium and I think the 2008 schedule represents that commitment. We have a quality schedule that will provide plenty of excitement for our fans. We are very excited to play host to Grambling State and their terrific band."
BYU issued a press release Wednesday saying, "To the extent that BYU suffers damages from this breach of contract, it will seek to recover them from Nevada."
Hawaii has gone undefeated by playing one of the weakest schedules in the country, yet has climbed into the top 10 in some polls.
Mendenhall told reporters the Mountain West might have to schedule easier opponents and pile up wins if that is going to be a major component of getting into a BCS bowl game at the end of the season.
All of this is from various extracts of Dick Herman’s article in the Deseret News.
This article discusses at great length whether mid-major conference teams benefit more from a weak schedule in the BCS standings. It fails to notice how, despite two losses, BYU is still in the BCS hunt.
The 18 teams are identified as the 2 teams already in the BCS Ohio State and WV;
the 9 teams vying for a conference title Missouri, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, BC, LSU, Tennessee, USC, ASU and UCLA; and 7 potential at large bids Georgia, Kansas, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Clemson and BYU.
BYU’s only real chance is for Hawaii, USC and ASU lose this weekend making UCLA the PAC 10 champion. If BYU is #16 or higher in the BCS standings and ahead of PAC 10 champion UCLA they are guaranteed a spot. Ironically BYU's BCS hopes rest on being ranked higher that a PAC 10 champion they lost to.
Would Hawaii be on the edge of a BCS berth if they had a single loss this year? Where would BYU be if they had a win over UCLA, or even did not have a loss to Tulsa dragging them down? They would be up near where Hawaii is now. With a win in both of these games they would have been up closer to where USC is, or maybe even LSU.
Undefeated Hawaii is near three loss SEC teams and two loss ACC and PAC 10 teams. Two loss BYU is near three loss PAC 10, BIG 10, BIG 12 teams and BIG East team.
Two thirds of a teams schedule is determined by their conference. Most of a teams SOS comes from the conference they are in. This tells me that a MWC schedule is worth about one loss in the BCS and a WAC schedule is worth about 2 losses in the BCS. The SEC is worth about negative one loss in the BCS.
Each of the computers used in the BCS generates a conference comparison (Sagarin uses a different method than used for the BCS for his conference comparison). By taking the actual values, converting them to z-scores and averaging the results for each conference I got surprising results, not in the order but the distribution.
I expected a bell curve with the bottom BCS conferences and top non-BCS conferences close to the center. Instead the BCS conferences where clustered from a score of .8 to 1.3. The MWC was all alone near the center and the other four Bowl Subdivision conferences and independents where clustered from a score of -.6 to -1.2. In the past the Big East, MWC and WAC were much closer than they are this year.
When the MWC and the WAC separated not too long ago, the MWC teams dedicated themselves to playing as many quality teams as they could manage. This is why the MWC is ahead of the other non BCS conferences in schedule strength.
BYU needs to schedule the hardest team they can find to help not just themselves but the entire conference. Hawaii barely made it because this year saw so much uncertainty in the top conferences. An undefeated BYU makes it every time.
Comments:
posted on November 30, 2007 11:37 AM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue
said:
I undertand the point -- the MWC holds up better and thus an undefeated champion would waltz into the BCS -- but I still don't buy it.
Look at last year for BYU....
Arizona
Tulsa
Boston College
Utah St.
TCU
San Diego St
UNLV
Air Force
Colorado St.
Wyoming
New Mexico
Utah... that's one BCS conf opp (well, two if you're inclined to count Zona), but that's a terribly salty list.
You're suggesting that this list would but BYU ahead of a one/two loss team from the SEC, Pac10, Big10, ACC, Big 12, Big East?
I understand that it's a hypothetical, but I'm just not buying it.
posted on November 30, 2007 4:03 PM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse? said:
They don't need to be ahead of one loss and two loss BCS teams to be in the top 12.
An undefeated MWC team would be behind 1 and two loss SEC and PAC 10 teams. They would be with, or slightly ahead of, a two loss team from any other BCS conference most years, though not the Big East this year.
The MWC is the most balanced conference in the land. SDSU, usually in the bottom half of the conference, is consistantly mentioned whenever PAC 10 expansion is mentioned. UNLV was within a touchdown of Wisconsin.
This depth at the bottom distinguishes the MWC from the other non BCS conferences, like the WAC.
Utah, BYU and TCU all get regonised as being equal a team from the middle of any BCS conference. Definately better than Arizona.
Every one in the MWC would be expected to be competitive with anyone from the bottom of a BCS conference. That can not be said for the bottom dwellers of the WAC or C-USA.
The main difference is in scheduling as the MWC specifically set out to schedule the most BCS teams possible. This is opposed to the apparent approach of Nevada.
Nevada apparently believes that the risk of BYU defeating them is greater than the benefit BYU would have in raising thier SOS. Maybe this is true in a conference where Boise State and Hawaii post two of the weakest schedules in Bowl Subdivision Football.
I am arguing that the MWC stratagy of scheduling the best teams across the board has put the conference a full loss ahead of the WAC and other non BCS conferences in the BCS standings.
I hope Mendenhall's comment about the scheduling is a sarcastic jab at Hawaii's and the WAC's approach to stealing a BCS spot.
Stan Bucasas said:
posted on December 1, 2007 2:37 PM — 24.2.198.121 — link — abuse?
You lost to Tulsa. Deal with it. Do you think BYU is the only school to have teams drop from their schedule? Michigan St. and WVU are only two schools i can remember that were AFRAID to play hawaii. Hawaii has done everything they needed to do up to this point of the season. BYU would have lost to both Hawaii AND Boise St. this year anyways. STOP BEING A HOMER.
P.S. MWC is nowhere near the calibur of the SEC, Pac10, Big10, ACC, Big 12, Big East. If you were supposed to be ranked higher, you wouldnt have lost those games. plain and simple.
posted on December 2, 2007 3:13 PM — 63.168.219.206 — link — abuse? said:
The data on conference compairison is strongly supportive of a bimodal distribution of strenght in 1-A conferences.
The MWC is in the middle of a huge gap between the Big 10 and the WAC this year. The difference between all six BCS conferences is bigger than either gap, and slightly less than the the WAC and the Sun Belt.
I believe this is an accurate picture of conference strength.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Kevin Donahue 
said:
posted on November 29, 2007 7:27 PM — link — abuse?An undefeated BYU makes it every time
??????? ?????? ??????