October 3, 2005
Flag on the Play: BCS Crystal Ball
Ah, October. The slightest hint of crisp, fall air, the smell of brats cooking in the parking lot, and the first BCS rankings rising up to look for their shadow. Actually, the first BCS rankings won't be out until October 17th, but it's just about time to peer into the ol' crystal ball and see what lies ahead.
There are just 26 unbeaten teams remaining (Florida State (4-0), Virginia Tech (5-0), Nebraska (4-0), Texas (4-0), Texas Tech (4-0), Penn State (5-0), Wisconsin (5-0), Cal (5-0), UCLA (4-0), USC (4-0), Alabama (5-0), Georgia (4-0)) and all of them are from the automatic berth conferences, which means there won't be a Cinderella team this year. Utah may have broken into the BCS last season, but it looks like the 2005 edition of the BCS will be composed of the "big six" conferences.
Here's my take on the BCS title game - as seen through the crystal ball:
ACC:
Virginia Tech is the class of the conference today, although FSU could be gathering speed as their freshman QB gets up to speed. Only Boston College and Miami stand between the Hokies and an undefeated birth in the ACC title game against Florida State. The Seminoles look to make the ACC title game undefeated as well, with just Florida looming. So the ACC title game will likely pair the undefeated #3 against the unbeaten #4. This bodes well for the winner staking at least some claim at the BCS title game. An early look at the computers has the ACC teams getting some love, so an undefeated ACC champ might leap a #2 poll team into the BCS because of the lower computer ranking, something the BCS haters are bound to love.
Big 10
Wisconsin and Penn State remain as unbeaten in the Big 10. JoPa's team has quite the gauntlet ahead and --while PSU is looking solid-- the odds don't look strong that they survive the span of Ohio State, @ Michigan, Wisconsin, and @ Michigan State unscathed. Wisconsin, on the other hand, really just has Penn State left on November 5th. With the Big Ten eating it's own, it's hard to see the computers giving an undefeated Wisconsin enough of a push to make the BCS title game.
Big 12
Texas, Texas Tech and Nebraska are the Big XII undefeateds, but not for long. Tech & Nebraska hook up this week while Texas gets Oklahoma. At best, the Big XII gets out of the weekend with one undefeated, perhaps two if Texas can get Bob Stoops off their back. Plain & simple, an undefeated Texas Tech has too much ground to make up in the human polls & maybe the computers too because of their "soft" schedule ("soft" is putting it mildly). Ditto for Nebraska. If Texas runs the table, as they should, then you've got a #2 team that could actually need help in the computer polls. Outside of Ohio State, no team on Texas' schedule is likely to show up in the final BCS rankings. In my opinion, Texas needs Ohio State to win out and an undefeated Nebraska to show up as a token offering for the 'Horns to destroy in the Big 12 title game. Otherwise, I'm not sure Texas has the computer rankings to make it into the #2 BCS slot.
Pac 10
USC, Cal, and UCLA all remain unbeaten, but still have a three-way, steel-cage match, battle royal to look forward too. I've said all year that I didn't think USC was going to run the table, but I'll be darned if I'm betting against them at this point. I see Cal & UCLA as potentially leading the one-loss also ran list. With the prospect of several undefeated teams at the end of the year ahead of them, I don't see either of the ursus teams making it.
SEC
Both Georgia and Alabama are undefeated and -theoretically- headed to a showdown in the SEC title game. Both teams have a tough road with some common foes. 'Bama gets Tennessee and LSU at home, but plays Auburn on the road. UGA has @ Tennessee, @ Florida (Jax), Auburn, and @ Georgia Tech. At best, only one team can make it out of the SEC undefeated. If I had to lean to one, this week's bashing of Meyer's Gators would lead me to believe that Alabama might be capable or running the table, but I think it's long odds that either team makes it out of the conference unbeaten. A one-loss SEC champ won't make up ground on an undefeated ACC champ or undefeated Texas, so I don't think we'll see an SEC team in the big show.
ESPN's Brad Edwards gives his estimate of the BCS top 10 on the ESPN Insider site. Here's an excerpt:
Although Texas is ranked second in the polls, the Longhorns are not currently as impressive to the computer programs. As the number of undefeated teams dwindles, UT should move up in these ratings by default. But, for now, they sit in the fourth position.After its win over Florida, Alabama has the highest average rating among the computers, although the humans currently rate the Crimson Tide ninth on the average.
1. USC Trojans
2. Virginia Tech Hokies
3. Florida State Seminoles
4. Texas Longhorns
5. Georgia Bulldogs
In conclusion, the crystal ball never expected the Big XII to turn out to be so weak that an undefeated #2 Texas might actually need help to make it into the BCS title game, but that's the look of things today. (Some crystal ball, huh?)
As it stands, the BCS title game looks like USC vs VaTech/FSU. But, grain of salt, OK. This crystal ball thing's been cracked before.
Comments:
Neville said:
posted on October 3, 2005 11:46 PM — 68.97.4.4 — link — abuse?
Sleep well. No chance this year 3+ teams go undefeated. Last year was the college football equivalent of a 100 year flood.
Much more likely this year: 0 undefeated teams and trying to pick 2 1 loss teams from 5-6 candidate schools. That would be messy.
Roger Harris said:
posted on October 4, 2005 12:53 AM — 65.4.168.11 — link — abuse?
I believe there should be a play off between the top 10 teams for the national championship. Because there are teams there that could beat all the top 5 teams but they dont get the chance to platy for the national championship because there not a well known team and this sucks the BCS just should shut down because they play who they want and that is usually their favorite team.. Like last year U.S.C. lost ong game but they did not move down in the polls and they got to play for the national championship...
Skip said:
posted on October 4, 2005 3:23 AM — 140.180.160.20 — link — abuse?
I'm a math guy so in a perverse way I enjoy all this. Besides, if by some magic spell an eight-team playoff was instituted immediately, we'd be whining just as loud the teams in spots 6-10, who got screwed in seeding, etc. If anything a playoff would prompt an even higher level of arguing in the weeks leading up to those final bowls; at the present time two losses de facto disqualifies a team from the BCS championship game and removes them from discussion. Far more teams have a reasonable argument to be in the top eight than in the top two.
But anyway, college football is and always will be full of controversy, but that one of the reasons I like it so much.
PACMan said:
posted on October 4, 2005 8:44 AM — 68.10.109.29 — link — abuse?
To Roger Harris..SC has won 26 straight. They were undefeated last year. They had one loss the year before, but got hosed, despite being #1 in both polls. And they didn't just play for the NC..they showed that it didn't matter who was fielded against them on that day.
posted on October 4, 2005 10:13 AM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
I'm gonna quote you on that one, Neville. I think there is a very realistic chance that three teams could be undefeated.
Marc said:
posted on October 4, 2005 11:44 AM — 63.162.183.12 — link — abuse?
Skip,
I agree that we will always have people complaining becasue they didn't make it to the Title game. However, the #9 (8 team playoff), the #11 (12 team playoff) have much less of an argument to make than an undefeated #3 team does. When was the last time someone actually said "Hey that #9 team should have been in the National Championship Game!"
DVaughan said:
posted on October 4, 2005 1:43 PM — 148.134.37.2 — link — abuse?
I agree. A playoff would probably cause more strife than what we have now. Instead of the rare chance of 3 undefeated. We would be faced with deciding which 1 or 2 loss team in each conference should take up the last spots. Then instead of one or two teams getting the shaft. You have a number of quality teams bickering over the playoff birth.
Sam said:
posted on October 4, 2005 1:44 PM — 64.136.49.227 — link — abuse?
3 unbeaten teams?? I don't know... if it does happen it'll be VT, SC, and Texas. I am a huge FSU fan, but I just can't see it happening. It is encouraging to see that if FSU/VT go unbeaten they may leapfrog (or stay in front of) Texas. FSU will have to win @ Clemson, @ UF, and then VT in Jax... that is alot to ask IMHO. Same for VT with UVA, Miami, and the FSU. Oh well. Should be lotsa fun watching it play out.
Marc said:
posted on October 4, 2005 4:14 PM — 63.162.183.12 — link — abuse?
Sam, I agree with you man. I would love to see FSU in the Title game, but I don't think its going to happen. But then again I didn't really think we could beat Miami.
Brandon, if everyone does stay healthy, it could be a nice and long ride for this group of freshman right now. It would be awesome to see.
Regan said:
posted on October 4, 2005 5:42 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
Sam:
>>For a playoff it is quite simple actually, win your conference, you are in... if not, you are at the mercy of the system. Sounds fair to me.The sheer wisdom of this statement cannot possibly be overrated.
For those of us who’d like to remember, when the 2003 Trojans got left out of the BCS Title game, WR Mike Williams was quoted as saying that they didn’t have room to complain because they dropped the California game; that they had thrown themselves to the mercy of the system, and it was their fault they weren’t in the Sugar Bowl.
Regan said:
posted on October 4, 2005 5:44 PM — 64.12.116.139 — link — abuse?
Next year the sport will get much simpler with the 12 regular-season game schedules. Note that when in ’03, there weren’t any undefeated BCS-conference teams and only three one-loss teams…Hopefully this will be the last year anyone gets ‘hosed’ (assuming it happens this year at all).
Here’s hoping……
bdub said:
posted on October 4, 2005 9:00 PM — 169.229.94.122 — link — abuse?
I don't understand how anyone could be against a playoff system. I've come to accept that it will never happen since there's too much money in bowl games, but how could anyone argue that playoffs would cause too much of a ruckus or be more confusing than the BCS?!!! Every other sport including other divisions of college football use a playoff and it works great for all of them. Some of you guys act like you've never seen a playoff system work before.
Regan said:
posted on October 5, 2005 12:50 AM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
I am against a playoff system. College Football is unique because every game is an elimination game. Every game matters. Each game has the passion, the tension, and the excitement because there is always something at stake. Whether it be the National Championship or just to be able to make a holiday Bowl trip.
There is only one reason to have a playoff - to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who is #1. This can be done much easier with a simple "Plus One" system for years that might have needed it.
There is no reason to change the entire nature and spirit of the best sport in the world just to satisfy people clamoring for it to be just like all the other mundane sports out there, IMHO.
I actually was an even bigger BCS fan before last year, when an undefeated SEC team was left out of the NC Game. They should have at least gotten a chance to play for the big crown. A "Plus One" alternative is bound to be feasable to at least pacify everyone.
VTBrad said:
posted on October 5, 2005 9:35 AM — 66.45.73.136 — link — abuse?
Regan, your not trying to tell me that the playoff system for college basketball is mundane are you? It is the most exciting post-season period in college sports. Im not saying college football should have a 64 team playoff but a scaled down playoff would KILL in the ratings and make the money plentiful to make it work.
"Plus One" is a step in the right direction.
Hippster said:
posted on October 5, 2005 4:31 PM — 12.4.181.2 — link — abuse?
I'm a big fan of no playoff because I like the every -game-is-deathly-important aura of college football, at least for the top five teams each year.
But it also leads to Big 12-style non-conference scheduling and a lack of big interstate games unless you're a Notre Dame fan.
I think I'm still against a playoff system. Who really cares about the final polls? We all know that Florida State wasn't be the best team in 93, Nebraska wasn't the best team in 97, Oklahoma didn't belong in the title game last year, so it's no big deal. To me, college football is great because of the regular season big games, not because of the final game.
trouty said:
posted on October 5, 2005 9:32 PM — 68.186.113.11 — link — abuse?
in reference to 11 the "noles" dynasty. Thats a joke SC freshman whould kill your freshman anyday. they just dont get a chance to play because of the talent in front of them. please noles dynasty, SC will win 5 straight AP national titles. Everybody will find out about the SC recruits soon enough but until then u better enjoy it now because SC will only get better even after lionhart and Bush leave lol. Thats the facts of life. Its gona be Sanchez to Turner to Or REED for a 50 yard TD or so on an so forth they reload every year. Cali prospects are the best year in and year out and now SC recruits the east coast new jersy the rest of the country is done before they even know it suckers!
Neville said:
posted on October 5, 2005 11:37 PM — 72.254.167.205 — link — abuse?
Kevin, I'll gladly be accountable for that statement in #2. If I remember correctly, before 2004 the last time that happened was around 1970 or so and back then there were no SEC / ACC / Big12 championship games.
It's just not going to happen again this year. BCS controversry again - you can count on that, 3 undefeated teams - not going to happen.
TOSUBucks said:
posted on October 6, 2005 8:02 AM — 141.153.108.66 — link — abuse?
How about this for a playoff system:
Top 2 teams from the big 6 conferences get in. 4 "At Large" teams get in from the small conferences based on their rankings, SOS, and so on. That would be a 15 game playoff schedule that would take 4 weeks. Each of the 15 games could represent a bowl game. This way the money is still being made and paid. The advertisers get their time and the universities get their money if their team makes it and wins. The more wins, the more money.
pimpdaddy said:
posted on October 6, 2005 12:20 PM — 66.26.85.103 — link — abuse?
Trouty? SC will win 5 National Championships? Dude your reaching. The noles had a dynasty, let's wait and see if USC will ever reach that level. The plus one system Regan suggested is the ideal solution. Every game means something still, if your from a small conference and you think you have a shot try playing some of the big conference schools instead of crying about it, and then get smacked around on national television like boise state did this year with Georgia. As for schools from weak conferences like the pac 10, play out of conference like USC has in the past. Plus one system works, if we would have had it the past few years, we would have seen if USC were pretenders or real contenders. Who knows if they have the potential to be a dynasty, like FSU and Miami, they continue to dodge the best teams and share national championshipsss.
PACMan said:
posted on October 6, 2005 4:47 PM — 68.10.109.29 — link — abuse?
trouty#20 is getting a little ahead of himself, but pimpdaddy#24 sounds just about as goofy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that in head to head competition, the top PAC-10 teams usually beat their top SEC opponents..Arkansas not included here, for fairness sakes..so, in fairness don't reference Oregon State or Stanford, though I do believe a lousy Oregon State team was within two missed PATs from beating LSU in Death Valley last year. I agree with the small conference comment you made..thanks for beating the stuffing out of the smurfs from Boise. However, the "weak" reference you make to the Pac-10, leads me to believe you live back East somewhere, don't see much of our football, and depend on the media pundits to supply you with your opinion of the Pac-10.
Regan said:
posted on October 6, 2005 7:59 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Pacman -
I will post this again, with the correction that you noted last time:
Breakdown of SEC vs. Pac-10 all-time:
Alabama: 13-5-1
Arkansas: 0-1-0* (1x Loss this year)
Auburn: 2-2-0
Georgia: 8-4-1
Florida: 6-4-1
Kentucky: 2-0-0
LSU: 11-3-0* (1x Win this year)
Mississippi: 0-0-0
Mississippi State: 1-2-0
South Carolina: 0-0-0
Tennessee: 13-10-3
Vanderbilt: 0-1-0Total: 56-32-6
Source: http://football.stassen.com/records/confres.html
This is a record of all-time college football scores sorted by conference. It is complete from 1920-2004. Counting this year’s SEC-Pac 10 games (LSU beat ASU; USC beat ARK), the total would be 56-32-6.
I apologize for posting out-of-date information earlier, I always try to base my arguments on facts and statistics rather than bombast, and I hate it when I screw up.
Thanks for being more sensible than Trouty in any case...
On that note, the SEC owns the Pac-10...
Regan said:
posted on October 6, 2005 8:15 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
VTBrad:
This was written by Matt Hayes (Sportingnews.com) on Feb. 14, 2005, and makes my point more effectively than I can:
>>
Football is fine minus the MadnessMaybe you've seen this already. I stumbled upon it while taking a break from digging trenches in the back yard, which explains how I spend my eight dreary months without college football. Apparently, our shameless friends at ESPN have figured out another way to overexpose a good thing. This time it's the basketball version of College GameDay, a spinoff of the wildly popular football College GameDay.
Two quick thoughts:
1) Any college production without the dimwitted yet delicious rantings of Lee Corso blows
2) The show reinforces my belief that in college football's most polarizing argument, I'm right: The current system -- no matter how convoluted and contrived -- beats the hell out of a national playoff.We can break down the numerous reasons why, but only one matters. A national playoff would render the regular season -- and eventually the sport itself -- meaningless. Ladies and gentlemen, for Exhibit A, I give you basketball College GameDay.
Digger Phelps is yapping about a "huge" Big East test for Syracuse and about how Notre Dame guard Chris Thomas is the type of player who can take over a game and carry a team on his shoulders. You know, all that clichéd coachspeak.
Another talking head shouts, "It doesn't get much bigger than this!"
Big, huh? Syracuse beat Notre Dame by nine a month earlier. Syracuse and Notre Dame could play again in the league tournament. And if things really get wacky, the two could play again in the NCAA Tournament. That's four games between two teams in one season -- each of which could have little bearing on the national championship.
Meanwhile, every week of the college football season is a national playoff. Every game is live or die; every game-changing play or mistake is replayed over and over. Every time a team steps on the field, its season can end. When Notre Dame limped off the Carrier Dome's court with another loss to Syracuse, it was just that -- another loss. Goals still were intact, the ultimate prize still attainable.
College football is about surviving and sustaining a body of work throughout a season; college basketball is about getting hot at the right time and running the table (see: N.C. State, Villanova, Kansas). What does college basketball have other than a tournament? Judged on its regular season, the sport would rate somewhere alongside reruns of championship poker. College football, meanwhile, never has been more popular -- even without a tournament.
We can drone on about how the BCS is unfair (of course it is) and how three unbeaten teams can't fit into two championship slots (so what). But what do we really want? We are a society of winning and losing; it's just that simple. That's the beauty of college football, the sport that forces each team to control its destiny -- win or go home -- from the first play of the season.
In a couple of months, the BCS honchos will get together again to further discuss the state of the controversial series and devise this year's changes. One tweak could include a poll of selected writers and broadcasters to replace the AP poll (going to happen) or a selection committee to choose the two teams for the national title game (not going to happen).
They'll dress it up nice and present it again, and everyone will carp and complain for the next four months. Hey, it's better than digging ditches.
PACMan said:
posted on October 6, 2005 10:59 PM — 68.10.109.29 — link — abuse?
Regan#27..That's a great link..thanks. You've proven your grandfather was a better ballplayer than mine. Looking at the last 20 years, the heads up record is 10-12-2, in favor of the SEC.
With only eight PAC-10 teams having played the SEC, there are 3 teams w/ losing records, 1/ w a winning record, and 4 with even records. The three with the losing records were Arizona, Oregon State, and Cal...I'm sure that Stanford would as well, had they played the SEC. I daresay their lowly equivalents in the SEC, such as Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss. St, Kentucky, would probably have losing records against the PAC-10 as well. That said, when pitting the top 5 or 6 teams in the conferences, there appears to be a wash in the modern era.I'll see your link with the below(data since 2000)..note the better than 2-1 number of games against D1-AA opponents..kinds skews overall records at the end of the year, doesn't it? I know someone will bring up Stanford this year, and well they should..Vandy also lost to Middle Tennessee State.
Reference link..http://scfootball.blogspot.com/2005/03/pac-10-outperforms-sec-freemethomps.html
Check out this link..obviously composed by an SC guy, but the statistical point made is that at the end of the day, for the most part, the BCS Conferences are about even, with each having their up and down years.
SEC record in OOC games: 151-57 (72.60%)
PAC record in OOC games: 124-51 (70.86%)PAC-10 SEC
60.61% Home vs BCS Conf team 51.61%
44.44% Away vs BCS Conf team 37.93%
86.96% Home vs non-BCS team 87.96%
68.18% Away vs non-BCS team 46.67%
52.38% Bowl Game vs BCS team 55.88%
100.00%(11-0) Vs D1-AA team 91.67%(22-2)Let's just see SC/BAMA in the Rose Bowl on New Year's, and settle this where it counts..:) SC is 2-3 all time against BAMA(the longest SEC/PAC-10 rivalry).
Make sure your shoring up that ditch..!
GA Boy said:
posted on October 11, 2005 10:28 PM — 66.110.197.20 — link — abuse?
Regan...thanks for the SEC vs PAC 10 stats. Very nice. The way USC is playing in the 1st half this year, they have a slim chance of finishing the season undefeated with the Irish and UCLA left, regardless of how well their O does in the 2nd half.
Of course as unpredictable as Shockley is protecting the football, neither do the DAWGS. But man would I love to see it!
I agree that the current system is best. You have to win out or forget it. A hard pill us DAWG fans have had to swallow since 1980. Maybe this is the year!commonsense said:
posted on October 13, 2005 4:14 PM — 12.34.237.202 — link — abuse?
The BCS Championship is coming early this year... scheduled for October 22nd in Austin Texas, when the Texas Longhorns try to hang on to there perfect season, and Texas Tech tries to move to 7 - 0, reminding the nation why they smeared a whiney team from California in the Holiday Bowl last season. With a win, any talk of a weak schedule should be laid to rest, so USC and Texas Tech can shoot it out in roses.
PACMan said:
posted on October 14, 2005 7:43 PM — 68.10.109.29 — link — abuse?
Texas Tech?? You've got to be kidding me..even they beat UT..which would make me happy. But Va Tech stands to be undefeated, and a one loss Bama, Penn State, Georgia, and possibly others would trump an undefeated Texas Tech team for the GrandDaddy..
commonsense said:
posted on October 18, 2005 2:40 PM — 12.34.237.213 — link — abuse?
Penn State, well there's one down... and bama barely beat Ole' Miss by 3 points?! Come on man they're done this weekend when tennessee hands it to them dirty. VA seems to be the real deal, but we'll see what happens with georgia when they get to florida and auburn. After Texas Tech pulls it off for ESPN's Gameday in Austin, there won't be too many undefeated teams hanging around anymore.
Mathmn said:
posted on October 19, 2005 2:18 PM — 68.104.130.231 — link — abuse?
For decades it's been my opinion that no rankings should come out preseason. At least the BCS knows this. Give the teams 4 to 5 weeks to establish who they are, then start the rankings. Doing this would assure that any good team would have at least a shot at gaining the one or two spot in the BCS. As it stands now, a team who is unranked preseason, and has a fabulous season, has no shot at overtaking an undefeated number one. Imagine if the Fighting Irish had not fumbled at the one against Michigan State, and had knocked down Leinart's unbelievable pass on fourth and nine. They still would not have been number one or two, because the teams already at the top were unbeaten.
Neville said:
posted on November 12, 2005 7:42 PM — 68.97.4.4 — link — abuse?
OK, I'm waisting no time here. There will not be 3 undefeated teams this football season .
Really though it was a lot closer than I thought. Alabama, Penn State, Miami - a lot of teams are just a play from perfection.
Looking back on it after a few years I think people will appreciate more and more just how much Auburn was jipped last year.
Brent Johnson said:
posted on January 24, 2006 3:40 PM — 207.28.104.1 — link — abuse?
you guys really suck at predicting things
posted on January 24, 2006 4:26 PM — link — abuse?
We suck at forecasting, Brent, but we're almost 20-20 when it comes to hindsight. ;)
PACMan said:
posted on October 3, 2005 10:30 PM — 68.10.109.29 — link — abuse?The BCS just sucks, period. I don't know how many ways it can be said. Someone's gettin' screwed. I hate Texas(second only to Miami), but I still hate to see them get the hosejob this year, as it looks like they will now..It's still early, but someone's gonna get jobbed.