Sunday, November 30, 2008

Week 14 Rankings

Let's go ahead and get the numbers up - Oklahoma takes #1 over Utah & Alabama, but more importantly Texas, who's at #2. And the difference is big - 30+ points. (Scroll down past the rankings and you'll see a comparison of all their games and how much each was worth.) Alabama will get a chance to pad their SoS next week against Florida, but in general they've played the easiest schedule of the BCS teams in the top 30 and the 4th easiest schedule of all BCS teams.

Georgia Tech jumps 8 spots to #13 after their victory over Georgia, and North Carolina moves up to #16. Everyone else is pretty much in the same spots. USC is still at #10, but a win over UCLA next week will probably vault them into the top five.

Week 14 Achievement Rankings
Rank Conf Team Pts W L W% oPts oW oL oW% rank∆
1 Big12 Oklahoma 474.16 11 1 91.7% 1277.93 99 58 63.1% 02
2 Big12 Texas 441.82 11 1 91.7% 1342.58 95 61 60.9% 00
3 MtnWest Utah 422.68 12 0 100.0% -346.01 75 71 51.4% -02
4 SEC Alabama 407.04 12 0 100.0% 381.09 89 77 53.6% 01
5 SEC Florida 396.58 11 1 91.7% 1246.85 98 60 62.0% 01
6 Big12 Texas Tech 386.76 11 1 91.7% 21.92 75 60 55.6% 01
7 WAC Boise State 383.61 12 0 100.0% -728.45 73 73 50.0% 01
8 Big10 Penn State 378.43 11 1 91.7% 67.50 75 69 52.1% -04
9 MAC Ball State 358.23 12 0 100.0% -1598.36 69 87 44.2% 01
10 Pac10 USC 357.37 10 1 90.9% 310.56 78 74 51.3% -01
11 Big10 Ohio State 311.17 10 2 83.3% 763.95 87 56 60.8% 00
12 BigEast Cincinnati 285.50 10 2 83.3% 48.00 80 72 52.6% 02
13 ACC Georgia Tech 281.07 9 3 75.0% 490.02 76 58 56.7% 08
14 MtnWest TCU 273.65 10 2 83.3% 45.43 80 65 55.2% -01
15 ACC Boston College 266.94 9 3 75.0% 874.42 88 69 56.1% 07
16 ACC North Carolina 235.77 8 4 66.7% 972.61 81 61 57.0% 08
17 SEC Georgia 232.89 9 3 75.0% 925.34 90 54 62.5% -05
18 MtnWest Brigham Young 227.49 10 2 83.3% -1011.45 64 78 45.1% -01
19 ACC Virginia Tech 225.78 8 4 66.7% 1305.66 94 62 60.3% 07
20 Big10 Michigan State 221.46 9 3 75.0% 624.07 86 69 55.5% -02
21 Big12 Oklahoma State 213.43 9 3 75.0% 476.38 82 63 56.6% -06
22 BigEast Pittsburgh 211.21 8 3 72.7% 876.41 87 63 58.0% 05
23 ACC Florida State 210.02 8 4 66.7% 934.74 83 52 61.5% -03
24 Pac10 Oregon 205.38 9 3 75.0% 60.85 75 76 49.7% 08
25 CUSA Tulsa 203.85 10 2 83.3% -1537.42 66 91 42.0% 00
26 Big12 Missouri 203.72 9 3 75.0% 567.37 90 67 57.3% -10
27 Pac10 Oregon State 184.93 8 4 66.7% 819.15 86 64 57.3% -08
28 SEC Mississippi 171.39 8 4 66.7% 548.14 85 60 58.6% 03
29 Big10 Northwestern 161.80 9 3 75.0% -469.25 69 76 47.6% -01
30 CUSA Rice 160.92 9 3 75.0% -811.46 71 84 45.8% 05
31 MAC Western Michigan 156.31 9 3 75.0% -793.57 72 74 49.3% -08
32 Big10 Iowa 154.19 8 4 66.7% -55.87 76 67 53.1% -02
33 Big12 Nebraska 150.94 8 4 66.7% 782.30 87 69 55.8% 07
34 Pac10 California 143.07 7 4 63.6% 277.89 78 74 51.3% -01
35 ACC Wake Forest 140.12 7 5 58.3% 1199.03 85 69 55.2% 10
36 ACC Maryland 133.70 7 5 58.3% 775.19 80 63 55.9% 01
37 CUSA East Carolina 133.25 8 4 66.7% -310.58 80 87 47.9% 05
38 BigEast Connecticut 128.56 7 4 63.6% 253.15 75 65 53.6% 01
39 ACC Clemson 127.71 7 5 58.3% 839.14 82 54 60.3% 12
40 MtnWest Air Force 121.53 8 4 66.7% -226.47 77 66 53.8% -02
41 Indy Navy 116.71 7 4 63.6% -188.89 73 69 51.4% 09
42 ACC Miami (FL) 114.47 7 5 58.3% 876.67 81 64 55.9% -06
43 BigEast South Florida 109.36 7 4 63.6% -75.69 73 67 52.1% 00
44 BigEast West Virginia 107.62 7 4 63.6% 265.44 76 64 54.3% -10
45 MAC Central Michigan 91.72 8 4 66.7% -787.24 71 75 48.6% -16
46 SEC South Carolina 90.41 7 5 58.3% 530.31 82 63 56.6% -05
47 BigEast Rutgers 88.51 6 5 54.5% 451.79 78 60 56.5% 02
48 ACC NC State 85.05 6 6 50.0% 1159.73 85 58 59.4% 10
49 Big12 Kansas 84.28 7 5 58.3% 792.02 87 56 60.8% 08
50 CUSA Houston 67.01 7 5 58.3% -561.87 74 71 51.0% -04
51 WAC Fresno State 60.76 7 5 58.3% -540.30 73 81 47.4% -03
52 SEC LSU 60.38 7 5 58.3% 265.36 80 64 55.6% -08
53 SunBelt Troy 52.44 7 4 63.6% -1226.89 65 76 46.1% -01
54 Big10 Wisconsin 45.34 7 5 58.3% 288.69 81 65 55.5% -01
55 WAC Nevada 40.30 7 5 58.3% -86.91 79 66 54.5% 08
56 ACC Virginia 35.29 5 7 41.7% 1386.10 82 49 62.6% 00
57 WAC Hawaii 34.86 7 5 58.3% -183.36 84 75 52.8% 04
58 Big10 Minnesota 21.09 7 5 58.3% -360.81 74 72 50.7% 02
59 SEC Vanderbilt 18.27 6 6 50.0% 680.58 86 70 55.1% -04
60 MAC Buffalo 16.77 7 5 58.3% -213.16 87 78 52.7% -13
61 WAC Louisiana Tech 14.32 7 5 58.3% -1062.31 67 78 46.2% -07
62 Pac10 Arizona 7.53 6 5 54.5% -517.78 69 83 45.4% 00
63 MtnWest Colorado State -5.57 6 6 50.0% 96.94 81 63 56.3% 02
64 Indy Notre Dame -13.87 6 6 50.0% 180.89 75 77 49.3% 00
65 SEC Kentucky -17.20 6 6 50.0% 133.55 79 63 55.6% -06
66 SunBelt Florida Atlantic -30.37 6 6 50.0% -617.95 73 77 48.7% 06
67 WAC San Jose State -32.43 6 6 50.0% -863.37 63 70 47.4% 00
68 SunBelt Arkansas State -33.52 6 5 54.5% -1174.45 60 69 46.5% 06
69 MAC Northern Illinois -35.32 6 6 50.0% -945.83 73 72 50.3% -03
70 Big10 Illinois -38.09 5 7 41.7% 509.07 81 52 60.9% -02
71 SEC Arkansas -38.31 5 7 41.7% 915.51 85 48 63.9% 08
72 CUSA Southern Miss -39.43 6 6 50.0% -504.50 76 77 49.7% 03
73 Pac10 Stanford -54.33 5 7 41.7% 238.57 73 66 52.5% -03
74 BigEast Louisville -59.56 5 6 45.5% 38.96 70 58 54.7% -03
75 Pac10 Arizona State -62.93 5 6 45.5% -267.48 65 64 50.4% 08
76 MAC Bowling Green -63.34 6 6 50.0% -932.04 65 78 45.5% 08
77 Big12 Colorado -66.92 5 7 41.7% 428.65 76 57 57.1% -08
78 SEC Auburn -74.70 5 7 41.7% 35.13 73 60 54.9% -05
79 CUSA Memphis -78.98 6 6 50.0% -1154.20 64 78 45.1% 06
80 SunBelt LA-Lafayette -85.70 5 6 45.5% -1339.88 58 82 41.4% 02
81 SunBelt Middle TN State -86.78 5 6 45.5% -1253.76 57 81 41.3% 00
82 ACC Duke -87.27 4 8 33.3% 1131.14 79 53 59.8% -05
83 MAC Temple -89.17 5 7 41.7% -477.36 70 71 49.6% 10
84 SEC Tennessee -89.77 5 7 41.7% 424.74 78 65 54.5% 06
85 Big12 Kansas State -91.85 5 7 41.7% -210.28 68 64 51.5% 01
86 CUSA UTEP -96.89 5 7 41.7% -234.58 73 70 51.0% -10
87 MtnWest UNLV -105.89 5 7 41.7% -112.06 73 70 51.0% 02
88 MAC Akron -106.43 5 7 41.7% -753.01 67 76 46.9% -10
89 Big10 Purdue -107.51 4 8 33.3% 713.66 83 50 62.4% -01
90 Big12 Baylor -109.96 4 8 33.3% 943.02 81 52 60.9% -03
91 Pac10 UCLA -111.29 4 7 36.4% 266.68 74 66 52.9% -11
92 SunBelt FL International -139.43 4 7 36.4% -1006.26 61 77 44.2% -01
93 SEC Mississippi State -140.83 4 8 33.3% 195.92 75 58 56.4% -01
94 MtnWest New Mexico -143.87 4 8 33.3% 232.05 80 63 55.9% 03
95 CUSA Marshall -146.90 4 8 33.3% 120.35 78 54 59.1% 00
96 Big12 Texas A&M -149.41 4 8 33.3% 629.57 78 64 54.9% 00
97 CUSA UAB -167.75 4 8 33.3% -804.62 65 68 48.9% 07
98 MAC Ohio -168.41 4 8 33.3% -712.25 69 64 51.9% 05
99 CUSA Central Florida -172.23 4 8 33.3% -532.56 67 66 50.4% -05
100 MtnWest Wyoming -173.35 4 8 33.3% -279.41 72 61 54.1% -01
101 BigEast Syracuse -178.95 3 9 25.0% 843.67 81 47 63.3% -03
102 WAC Utah State -180.21 3 9 25.0% 670.20 87 57 60.4% 03
103 Big10 Indiana -192.89 3 9 25.0% 472.71 82 51 61.7% -02
104 Big10 Michigan -205.82 3 9 25.0% 796.74 85 59 59.0% -02
105 SunBelt LA-Monroe -216.87 4 8 33.3% -1407.91 54 74 42.2% 01
106 MAC Kent State -223.10 4 8 33.3% -1015.47 63 69 47.7% 03
107 MAC Toledo -236.85 3 9 25.0% -497.03 71 71 50.0% -07
108 Indy Army -246.66 3 8 27.3% -745.34 64 67 48.9% 00
109 MAC Eastern Michigan -252.35 3 9 25.0% -286.24 73 60 54.9% 02
110 WAC New Mexico State -266.96 3 9 25.0% -545.89 68 66 50.7% -03
111 Big12 Iowa State -308.29 2 10 16.7% -377.96 68 65 51.1% 02
112 WAC Idaho -313.92 2 10 16.7% -566.82 69 64 51.9% 04
113 CUSA Tulane -315.80 2 10 16.7% -152.76 76 67 53.1% -03
114 Pac10 Washington State -319.52 2 11 15.4% -28.01 74 65 53.2% -02
115 Indy Western Kentucky -320.43 2 9 18.2% -784.01 64 57 52.9% 00
116 MtnWest San Diego State -323.50 2 10 16.7% -121.87 74 60 55.2% 01
117 MAC Miami (OH) -368.91 2 10 16.7% -810.44 66 68 49.3% -03
118 CUSA SMU -378.05 1 11 8.3% 56.62 77 55 58.3% 00
119 Pac10 Washington -393.31 0 11 0.0% 1037.99 83 57 59.3% 01
120 SunBelt North Texas -396.01 1 11 8.3% -527.35 70 68 50.7% -01

The ACC extends their lead over the rest of the conferences by quite a bit - going 3-1 against the SEC will do that for you. The Big12 is well behind in #2, and the SEC and BigEast are close together at #3 & #4.

Week 14 Conference Achievement Rankings
Rank Avg Points Conference non-conf W non-conf L non-conf W% non-conf oPts non-conf oW non-conf oL non-conf oW%
1 142.99 ACC 37 11 77.1% -3717.74 227 189 54.6%
2 100.97 Big12 38 10 79.2% -5156.25 218 244 47.2%
3 84.67 SEC 37 11 77.1% -4835.61 222 248 47.2%
4 84.23 BigEast 28 12 70.0% -2867.79 199 203 49.5%
5 65.39 Big10 32 12 72.7% -4240.37 210 216 49.3%
6 31.33 MtnWest 25 11 69.4% -4998.71 144 206 41.1%
7 -3.78 Pac10 14 17 45.2% 1338.53 205 145 58.6%
8 -28.95 WAC 18 18 50.0% -2472.93 186 171 52.1%
9 -70.44 CUSA 18 30 37.5% -910.23 272 217 55.6%
10 -71.24 MAC 22 30 42.3% -3437.06 265 263 50.2%
11 -115.44 SunBelt 12 27 30.8% -1824.95 215 215 50.0%

Here's the scoop on Oklahoma & Texas. Originally, the table is set up by date, but as usual you can click on the headers to sort. The last column, "Game Pts", is how many points they earned for that particular game.

Oklahoma & Texas, Game by Game
Team vs/@ oConf Opponent oPts oW oL Res. pts opts diff GamePts
Oklahoma vs zAA Chattanooga -412.08 0 2 W 57 2 55 12.51
Oklahoma vs BigEast Cincinnati 280.11 10 2 W 52 26 26 64.36
Oklahoma @ Pac10 Washington -393.35 0 11 W 55 14 41 22.32
Oklahoma vs MtnWest TCU 272.42 10 2 W 35 10 25 63.38
Oklahoma @ Big12 Baylor -102.55 4 8 W 49 17 32 31.82
Oklahoma v Big12 Texas 438.52 11 1 L 35 45 -10 -17.31
Oklahoma vs Big12 Kansas 82.12 7 5 W 45 31 14 38.35
Oklahoma @ Big12 Kansas State -94.13 5 7 W 58 35 23 31.90
Oklahoma vs Big12 Nebraska 149.11 8 4 W 62 28 34 47.83
Oklahoma @ Big12 Texas A&M -151.00 4 8 W 66 28 38 29.59
Oklahoma vs Big12 Texas Tech 381.62 11 1 W 65 21 44 77.47
Oklahoma @ Big12 Oklahoma State 212.96 9 3 W 61 41 20 66.30
Texas vs SunBelt Florida Atlantic -26.46 6 6 W 52 10 42 24.73
Texas @ CUSA UTEP -98.78 5 7 W 42 13 29 31.40
Texas vs CUSA Rice 160.25 9 3 W 52 10 42 49.22
Texas vs SEC Arkansas -42.01 5 7 W 52 10 42 26.62
Texas @ Big12 Colorado -67.41 5 7 W 38 14 24 33.88
Texas v Big12 Oklahoma 468.51 11 1 W 45 35 10 86.20
Texas vs Big12 Missouri 205.68 9 3 W 56 31 25 54.92
Texas vs Big12 Oklahoma State 212.96 9 3 W 28 24 4 52.45
Texas @ Big12 Texas Tech 381.62 11 1 W 33 39 -6 -17.81
Texas vs Big12 Baylor -102.55 4 8 W 45 21 24 24.98
Texas @ Big12 Kansas 82.12 7 5 W 35 7 28 48.24
Texas vs Big12 Texas A&M -151.00 4 8 W 49 9 40 23.68

9 comments:

Griffin Caprio said...

I have to bring up this point, which no one else has:

The whole OU vs. UT paradox isn't a "problem with the BCS".

It's a problem w/ the Big 12 and their choice of tiebreakers.

Why would they chose something that amounts to, essentially, a coin flip? Other conferences have non-BCS related tie-breakers. SoS? # of I-AA teams played? record vs. non-conf, BCS teams, etc....

People can bitch about the BCS, but this time, that's not the issue.

Ed Gunther said...

I couldn't agree more, Griffin. This is a problem with the Big12, and if Texas and others are going to be mad, they should be mad at their conference commissioners for making the BCS a part of their conference tiebreaker system.

They shouldn't get too mad though - if they hadn't lost to Texas Tech, they wouldn't be in this position. That goes for all the one-loss teams.

Griffin Caprio said...

BTW, the SEC already has a stipulation in their conference rules that says the same thing as the Big 12 tiebreaker EXCEPT "if the higher ranked team lost to the lower ranked team and the teams are within 5 BCS spots of each other"

Why wouldn't that be the same for all conferences?

Ed Gunther said...

Yup - that's probably the way the Big 12 should've done it. But it's too late now.

It wouldn't (and shouldn't) be the same for all conferences because all conferences aren't the same. They enjoy a whole bunch of autonomy and say as to how their conference is run, whether it's scheduling, TV contracts, dividing money, which teams are a part of the conference, and how their championship is decided - they're not gonna give up that power.

Here's another one for you - if Missouri beats Oklahoma, then Texas will probably get the #2 slot. But what if Oklahoma wins in a squeaker? Texas already beat Missouri 56-31 this season - what if Oklahoma wins 42-39? Texas has the better win there, why not have them leapfrog Oklahoma back? What if there's a bad call by the refs that affects the outcome of the game in favor of Oklahoma? Should the voters go with Texas then? In either case, I'd argue that putting the Longhorns back to #2 would be justified.

Griffin Caprio said...

sure, not saying all conferences need to be the same. But if you're going to have a rule that invites a quagmire, it's best for all if it's the same.

As for your scenario, how about this one: What if Ala loses a tight one to UF ? That will be bamas only loss. How far would they drop? My guess is the computers would kill them for losing to the only other good team on their schedule. But it's interesting to think about. I think in your scenario, USC gets the nod. Voters would be weary of putting a non-conf champ into the NCG.

Now, if USC loses to UCLA next week and UM beats OU....bring on the Utes! :)

Ed Gunther said...

Yeah, you're right - the computers already don't like Alabama, mainly because their SoS is weak any way you slice it. They wouldn't recover from even a close loss too Florida because MoV isn't allowed in the BCS computers.

The main thing that will stop people from invoking the "Texas didn't win their conference championship" argument is the fact that Oklahoma was CHOSEN as the Big12 South representative. In a way, it might be a relief to voters if Missouri wins because then they'll know that putting Texas at #2 is definitely the right thing to do. It'll give them a chance to correct a wrong choice.

USC isn't getting in because the Pac10 is seen as weak this year, which they are. Sure they played ridiculous tough teams in non-conf play, but they lost - that matters. Same thing with Penn State - the Big 10 is seen as weak, so they're out. The Big12 is seen as the toughest, so Texas has a huge edge because of that. But it is amazing to see just how dominant the Trojans' D has been this year - as impressive as Oklahoma's offense, if you ask me.

Griffin Caprio said...

All good points.

One thing I hope to see is the ACC commissioners furiously updating their rule books lest they have a similar situation in the future wrt to division champs and three way ties.

As for USC D...eh...What's the best offense they've faced? Ore St? Maybe after what Ore did to Ore St, they're the best O. I would have loved to see them in the fiesta vs. a Big 12 team, though. That would have been a great game. Too bad they'll get to kill PSU in the rose bowl.

Phil the Brit said...

Let's consider a major benefit this wrangling might bring over the longer term.

Undefeated seasons have become rare beasts in conferences where the winners must play a thirteen-game season (Big 12, SEC, etc.). The one-loss tiebreaker, therefore, is here to stay.

Oklahoma is clearly benefitting from having Cinninnati and TCU on its slate, boosting its strength of schedule. Now, whether OU thought these two opponents would provide more than a light workout when the games were scheduled, I'm not sure.

What is clear is that non-conference scheduling needs a rethink in the athletic offices across the country. Creampuffs are out; competitive inter-conference games are in.

As a fan, you've got to love that.

Ed Gunther said...

The ACC was just nuts this year - ten teams at 5-3 or 4-4 in conference play? That's about as balanced as you get. But you're right, Griff - I'm sure all conferences are going to take a look at their tiebreaker procedure this off season.

No, the Trojans haven't really played anyone of note except for Ohio State and maybe Oregon, but it's how their D has played that I'm impressed with. For example, against their other, non-USC opponents, Ohio State averaged over 30 points a game. Oregon averaged over 44, Arizona averaged over 40, and Cal averaged over 34 - USC held them all to 10 or under. So even though their opponents might not have been great, USC's D made them look borderline inept. It is a shame that we won't get to see what they'd be able to do against a Big12 South team, but Penn State's offense is pretty potent, though I tend to think it'll be more of the same too.

As far as undefeated seasons go, I think you're right, Phil. An undefeated season is rare, and one-loss teams do need to be able to point to a strong SoS to distinguish themselves. But it's a double-edged sword since it's easier to go undefeated if you play cupcakes, and if you're undefeated and play in a BCS conference you're basically on top.

It's a risk that a lot of coaches and teams are willing to take - just look at Texas Tech and Alabama this year. They played extremely easy non-conf schedules (yes, Bama's non-conf was easy - Clemson was vastly overrated and the other three were cupcakes). It's worked out for Alabama since they're undefeated, and though Texas Tech is a one-loss, they're not getting consideration any more not because they played two I-AA teams but because they got destroyed in their one loss.

Sure Oklahoma went semi-tough with Cincy and TCU (I think they knew what they were getting, which I give them props for - http://thenationalchampionshipissue.blogspot.com/2008/01/oklahoma-non-conf-scheduling.html). That's definitely helped them out, and I hope a lot of other teams see that and recognize the value of playing a tough non-conf schedule.

If you ask me, they shouldn't allow any games against I-AA teams to count for bowl qualification. If you want the revenue that comes with a guaranteed win over a cupcake, that's fine, but you've gotta give up standing and a little bowl consideration to get it. I'm not saying that teams shouldn't be allowed to play I-AA teams, but I think they should be forced to choose - you get either an easy W and revenue or you take a step closer to a good post-season bowl. Don't give them both, that just reinforces negative (scheduling cupcakes) behavior.